Comments on: USAF Big: “Kill” Bloated Programs

By: T.A.R.

T.A.R. — Tue, 26 May 2009 00:17:11 +0000

Maybe it is time to remove a dubious asset a independent Air Force. You need Air Power to control the space over land and sea. You do not need an entire independent command structure. Allocate the Long Range Bombers, Logistic and Transport duties to the U.S.N. All tactical Air to the U.S. Army since the Navy and the Marines already have their tactical Air Wings. The saving in uniforms alone will be worth it.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:45:08 +0000

The Air Force has a ridiculously bloated budget that needs to be HALVED. There is no reason a service that has less aircraft than the other two depts of defense and fewer personnel should be afforded remotely near the budget of the Navy and Army.…start slicing and dicing the Air Force down to $50 Billion from $110 billion!

By: SickOfBS

SickOfBS — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:06:45 +0000

I’m in the wrong line of work. I should go work for defense companies so I can legally rip off the taxpayers by producing heaps of no-good ill-thought-out, badly project-managed weapons systems, and attempt to hoodwink the populace by repeating the oft-used mantra of “Our troops deserve the best weapons in the world/It is criminal to send our boys and girls out to war with substandard equipment”. These businesses have een getting away with this rorting for years and will still get away with it for the forseable future. Too greedy! But when one complains about their BS they say you are not patriotic, blah blah blah. Apparently (in my mind atleast) they don’t care for words like “On Time; On Budget; Works as advertised”!

By: jtw

jtw — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:33:29 +0000

And the Constitution says you cant allocate money for the Military for more then a year(or something like that). So them allocating money for 6 year programs is unconstitional. IM sure there are programs that receive money every year without congress’s approval at the budget meeting which would breach the constitution.
First our Second Amendment.
Then Privacy.
Now a Military mega business.

By: Pedestrian

Pedestrian — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:27:58 +0000

I hope the OICW program to be dead. What a shame for using Anti-American German’s H&K built weapons and not using one from American firms. That steals the jobs of American firms and will weaken the national military industry. There is also EADS trying to sell its military aircrafts, while European countries attempting to deny American weapons to be sold within Europe.

By: Phil Fraering

Phil Fraering — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:27:15 +0000

Gee, I guess the Last Supper didn’t wind up saving everyone money after all.

By: jtw

jtw — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:25:41 +0000

The Defense Department was only allocated roughly 70 billion dollars for 2006 R&D.
If they want to cut 10 billion, that means 15% of the entire R&D budget is currently allocated to “bloated programs that have been going on forever and have gotten more and more expensive”.
That is pretty sad. Not to mention all the other programs that probably fit into the “bloated and too expensive” category that arent being cut.
I wonder what our potential is in research versus what the current system outputs. It is weird to me looking at the SBIR budget for example, only around 1 or 2 billion dollars goes to small business’s. The rest is devoured by Boeing and Grumman.
If that isnt capitalism and monopoly I dont know what is.

By: J.

J. — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:44:18 +0000

No, no, when Moseley says you need to cut programs that are “taking too long” and “keep growing and growing and growing and growing”, he means the big bloated Army and Navy programs, not AF programs. Silly Noah.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:15:25 +0000

Seems like they want there cake and eat it to.

By: TheMasterTimekeeper

TheMasterTimekeeper — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:44:37 +0000

…So Myers wants to cut tactical aircraft on one hand, and then deploy a new bomber with the other?
I’m confused. Only two ways of cheaply (and cheap is a relative term, of course) deploying a new long-range heavy bomber come to mind; either reopen B-52H production lines, or build a “B-767″.
Of course, this just won’t do. Neither airfram is sexy enough to supply sufficient padding for a colonel’s resume.