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

originally posted by: beezzer
And in other news. . . . .

The Obama administration announced that the new weapon program titled "Harsh Language" and the additional program "A red pen to draw a line" will be used instead of the highly successful weapons programs that he wants to eliminate.

Maybe it's the name "Tomahawk".

as in "viewpoint discrimination”

a reply to: buster2010

The military industrial complex IS part of the welfare industrial complex what part of that do you not understand?

That was damn right hilarious. Since social programs NEVER get cut.

a reply to: buster2010

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

Yo WHAT DOES THAT SAY ?

Cuts gotta come from somewhere. Considering we spend way, way waaaay too much on military.. they need to cut something in the military. Those missiles cost some 1.4 million each. Even China who has massively ramped up military spending is spending 5 times less than us.

The hypocrisy and whining is endless. Complaints about spending.. and then complaining when they cut what clearly needs to be cut. They really can't win no matter what they do.

What I find quite amusing is the numbers that the OP article gives: the article states:

Nearly 100 of these missiles are used each year on average, meaning that the sharp cuts will cause the Tomahawk stock to be completely depleted by around 2018.

Bull crap.

The US Navy currently has a stock of around 4,000 of them right now, and will be buying them, abet at reduced numbers still until.

Even if they US Navy stopped buying them right now, at 100 used per year (a number that makes me raise my eye brows......since when the US Navy does testing on it's systems, we shot our missiles very rarely. Why? Because they are FREAKING EXPENSIVE! That's why. Much cheaper to use gun rounds for practice.

Still, even if the US Navy were to use 100 per year......with a stock of 4,000 it would take 40 years to deplete that stock.

Then the article says that the new system will not be ready for 10 years.

Hmmmmmm...... we have 40 years worth of missiles. We have to wait 10 years for a new system.

Exactly what is the problem?

There isn't one. It's simply an issue that is NOT an issue, except for certain members of congress and "Military Experts".

Notice that you do not see it's a problem for certain members of congress, "military experts", AND the US Navy.

Those of you that are screaming about this are acting like they are not only going to stop buying missiles, but like they are going to do it today, and act like there is no stock of them that they US Navy has (they do, a LOT of them), and that they are going to march aboard each ship that has the Tomahawk system and rip it out......

Bull Crap.

Sorry, again, I do not like Obama, but this is a non-issue. Having spent 10 years in the US Navy working on missile systems, I'll be one of your "military experts" and tell you that y'all are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

The only reason to continue to buy a large amount of these missile is if the US Navy were planning on having to use a lot of them over the next 10 years, and that would concern me.

You know, since he doesn't think the protection aspect is very important for the country, maybe he can show us how little it's needed and get rid of his own security.

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

It does not. Again, a just a little research tells you that is not true. The Navy has made this choice and ran in by the House Armed Services Committee Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee in March. I suppose if your looking for a single person to blame, Navy acquisition executive Sean Stackley is your man. Although the Navy brass approved it. And so it seems did the House Committee LINK

Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., expressed interest in continued Tomahawk modernization, telling the witnesses at the hearing that she would like to see modernization streamlined or combined with re-certification of the weapons in 2019 and 2020.

So the this is a Navy idea supported by even the Republicans on the house commitee. Just what role do you imagine Obama played in that. And why do you think we need more than 4000 TLAMs since we have not even used half that many in every conflcit since the were first created? Just a little research and critical thinking would avoid making you look like you have no idea what your talking about.

originally posted by: fleabit
Cuts gotta come from somewhere. Considering we spend way, way waaaay too much on military.. they need to cut something in the military. Those missiles cost some 1.4 million each. Even China who has massively ramped up military spending is spending 5 times less than us.

The hypocrisy and whining is endless. Complaints about spending.. and then complaining when they cut what clearly needs to be cut. They really can't win no matter what they do.

The thing is, it is not even a cut. They just have so many of the things, 4000, that they do not need anymore because they are rolling new systems in the next few years. So not only will we have 4000 TLAMs sitting around we will have the generation of cruise missles rolling out as well.

He's just listening to his advisors. What about the concept of end-of-life and replacement programs is so hard to grasp?

The Military Wants To Phase Out Tomahawk And Hellfire Missile Programs

Navy Seeks Next Generation Tomahawk

originally posted by: neo96
That epic BONEHEAD move virtually makes the Arliegh Burkes, and Ticonderoga class destroyers, and cruisers

USELESS.

Not entirely true, the Ticonderoga is an anti-air platform mostly. But DDGs have been obsolete for ages. Heck, most navy surface combatants are obsolete. The only role the Navy can perform that is worthwhile these days is projecting aircraft into regions without secure airfields. And as a symbol, of course.


Heck, I expect they probably need to can pretty much everything to be able to afford the White Elephant that is the F-35 - the worlds most expensive and most useless aeroplane.

I find it astonishing how many A-10s and other actually useful aircraft have been retired so the F-35 program can continue limping along.


If you want to point at one military spending project that genuinely is a betrayal to the American people? I suggest the F-35.

originally posted by: neo96

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. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...

neo96, are you not familiar with what the Washington Times is?

In 1982, Sun Myung Moon (of the Unification Church), founded it due to criticism of his church by the other paper in D.C. at the time - the Washington Post. It's lost money every year that it's been in business - mostly surviving because of subsidies from said church. It opposes gay and transgender rights. Aside from being a counter to the Post, it heavily leans conservative. Hence, the propaganda you see in this article.

Do not trust it as an unbiased source. Even if you are also conservative, it paints reality with a colored brush.

Look in this thread. There are former sailors - people who worked on or with the missile you are trying to defend - and they are saying it's a non-issue. Open your eyes.

I'm going to do something in this thread that I don't do often, side with the left. We need to free up more money in our budget, cutting things we don't need in the military is a big one. We need to reduce the military's budget anyways, would you guys rather them have cut soldiers' pay? This is all a non-issue. America will be just fine.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm going to do something in this thread that I don't do often, side with the left. We need to free up more money in our budget, cutting things we don't need in the military is a big one. We need to reduce the military's budget anyways, would you guys rather them have cut soldiers' pay? This is all a non-issue. America will be just fine.

Well your not really agreeing with the left. The reduction is a Navy idea supported by both parties. The OP just got fooled by a sensationalist article that claims Presidents sit around making choices on how much of each weapon the military needs.

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 right is suffering from a bad case of ignorance.....guess what boys and girls!!....there are NEWER MISSLES!!!!....DUUUHHHHH.......you right-wingers make Homer Simpson sound sane

I got it, if the only problem is the budget to keep our military strong then just have a fundraiser. Seems to be the one thing that Obama is good at.

originally posted by: Helimech
I got it, if the only problem is the budget to keep our military strong then just have a fundraiser. Seems to be the one thing that Obama is good at.

That is not the problem. The problem is the OP was confudsed and mislead by a poorly written article that failed to mention the Navy is going to stop old missle programs because they have new ones. Of course just reading the damn thread would have avoided you as well looking confused.