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 and Gates Gut the Military

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by elston
 


The fact that they were updated doesn't change the fact that they're getting old. The maintenance requirements for them has skyrocketed, along with costs to keep them flying. I used to work on the -135s and they could be pigs. The E models ALWAYS had problems with the fuel system they used. We started out launching the R models with 210,000 pounds of fuel to offload half of that to the fighters they were dragging. By the early 2000s they were limited to 180,000 pounds MAX fuel load. They were starting to to see problems in them because of the new engines and the vibration they were causing at heavy loads.




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The F-18E/F and the E/A-18 are currently in production.

The F-16 Block 60 is being produced for the UAE, that would be the best F-16 for the Air Force to get if they were going to buy more Vipers. They have an electronics bay down the spine, along with conformal fuel tanks, and other upgraded avionics.

Boeing just released the F-15SE. It has outwardly canted tails, internal weapons bays, and incorporates RAM. They are not currently planning to sell it to the Air Force, but the expected cost was around $100M per airframe.

I'm trying to get a cost for the Block 60/62 Vipers.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


4th...... I will offer America up on a silver platter to my favorite dictator.5th.......... I will make sure the American Military is rendered defenseless! 6th...... I will guarantee the American people will not be able to do anything about it by taking away their right to bear arms! 7th..... I will single handily bring down the greatest nation on earth. 8th.......I will invite Ahmedijinad, Chavez, and 'Lil Kim' Jong Il to the white house for a slumber party. We can play monopoly, and vote on the "Biggest Loser"!!!

The man is an Asinine, Infantile Arrogant SOB!! has NO Common Sense whatsoever!!! He is just plain 'COMMON'!



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
As far as I'm concerned, this is one of the few things the administration is doing right. Instead of having a contest to see who can piss away the most taxpayer money on ridiculous crap that no enemy of this country will ever challenge in at least 50 years, and that's of the stuff that ever actually works, why don't we spend the money on troops having decent care and body armor, problems we actually have presently.

Raising the defense budget by 4 percent when it is already massive and unnecessarily expensive is not what I would call gutting.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Well, the way it seems to me, foreign armies might not be the biggest threat to the nation these days. It's a biggie but not the biggest.

I feel that most of our enemies have figured out that they aren't going to whip us in an all out fight so they're trying to whip us where it really hurts us, in the wallet. In some cases using our own greed as the weapon of choice.

China's cutting us off at the knees with cheap products, Bin Laden flat said he's going to destroy us financially (and seems to have helped a lot) ect, ect.

I'm not saying we don't need the armed forces, just that this isn't Kansas anymore and we better be using some of our resources on the things that have 'changed' without any help at all from the current administration.

And if Obama can get all the radical kooks of the world more interested in Dancing with the Stars than destroying us, -I'm all for it.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I'm all for cutting back our military to the extent of closing down many over seas bases. But here at home we have huge issues with the US-Mexican boarder. Why not slim down our over seas spending and beef up our own boarders?

Please don't get the impression I'm left or right but I need to bring up an issue. Remember when Clinton was in office? He slashed the military to dangerous levels yet he called on the military for over sea actions more then any president before him combined!

Something has to give, slashing funding without changing our foreign policy is asking for dead American soldiers.

So while the uneducated observer might praise his actions, to the trained observer, it's worrying.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


But, from ALL news sources, not just 'fox news', you will learn that the FY 2010 military budget is $B534...compared to Bushes last budget of $B513.

I'm no economist, but that looks like an overall budget Increase for the military.


Sweet - Post some proof WW and let wrap this sumabich up



Then, TOMORROW, followed by the next day FF can OP

" OBAMA OFFERS AND STIRS SUGAR FOR PUTIN'S COFFEE"

or

"OBAMA HOLDS THE DOOR OPEN FOR CALDERON"


Maybe Obama can use the excess $$$ and give it to FF so they can go find and marry Jon Gault ....
( hint probably off with Rand doing some kinky stuff with a meat tenderizer mind you )

[edit on 9-4-2009 by The Bald Champion]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


It's an increase, but it's HOW they increased it that hurts. They slashed TacAir, with no replacements. They cut projects that we need in the long term to replace our ancient aircraft fleets.

As for UCAV programs, there are no A2A UCAVs that will be operational before AT LEAST 5 years that I've heard of.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
just to be a pain in the ass and add to the discusstion that is rampant about obama.

I bet not one of you here takes the time to listen to the comments made or infact told by vladmir putin at the econmoic fourm at davos.. and i state

we do not see any need for our tanks we melt them for our econmy is in more need than our military we have no real enermy that can attack us via land or would even do so.. we have more tanks that what we need

THEY MELT THERE OWN TANKS

and if you think im pulling a fast one look it up ECONOMIC FORUM 2009 DAVOS key not speech

people need to stop wallfing on about war and how big your balls are

the usa IS the BIGGEST spender on ARMS ON THE ENITER PLANET end of story

LORD OF WAR watch it... the right to bare arms? hmm sounds like the best way to make money killing other dip#s to me.....

get a grip will you hes spending MORE on defence than BUSH hes cutting out WASTE when he/use has the BEST gadgets on the plant and beside all that war crap

THEY ARE GREEDY MEN.. RUSSIA CHINA USA own US ALL they are playing us all like DOPES.. THEY WILL NEVER GO TO WAR

i give you one word to get your head around GREED

understand that word and understand why russia china and usa will NEVER EVER EVER go to war

EVER..



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
cut the military budget?What a joke.Our government is not going to end the empire.And you'll be glad of that if your ever attacked by a terrorist in this country.How would the 50,000 troops we have in Japan,Korea,or Germany protect us from some looney with a bomb
in Cleveland if we cut the budget?



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


According to Wikipedia, the US military budget is increasing 5.7% on last year - up to $515.4 bil.

So, the assertion is patently ridiculous - its a matter of where the money is spent that the article is critical of. I don't think a one year drop in spending on air and sea superiority is going to make much difference.

The longer term problem is that the US govt is insolvent - and that SS 'trust fund' is likely to burn to zero as early as next year. Inflation rates are going to be high, so nominal costs are going to increase against falling tax revenues and increases in payments to retirees - at least until the SS runs out (next year?).

Even when the money completely runs out - don't expect any real cuts in military spending - they might increase the proportion spent domestically though - to ensure an orderly economic disintegration, you need someone around to shoot at and lock up all the 'crazy' people and 'terrorists' who are protesting against government malfeasance.


A bit off topic - but;

The basic tactic of printing money is this - if you borrow a lot of money, then create inflation - the amount you have to pay back is nominally the same, but a lot less in real terms. It seems like a nice strategy - however it also smashes savings and salaries - the lower classes pay that price.

If you want to 'win' over the next few years - here's the sure fire tactic. Buy physical gold - go a bank, and leverage that gold (take a loan against its value) - borrow as much as you possibly can - lie to them, mortgage everything - get someone to guarantee your loan etc - get yourself in debt to the hilt - use that money to buy more gold.

This is what will happen - the value of the gold asset will in worst case stay the same - this means its dollar will will increase as inflation sets in - but the amount you have to repay remains the same. As the price of living increases, salaries are likely to be adjusted upwards (if your lucky enough to have a job). In this scenario - you make big bucks over the next few years - using the governments money printing tactic to your advantage.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Amagnon]

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Amagnon]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
actually, i think this is cover for his overall continuation of bush's policies.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join