Comments on: “Rob Peter to Pay Paul”

By: james

james — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 03:42:09 +0000

Just wanted to know can any creditors take any of my Disablity if I get behind on an auto.

By: Cole

Cole — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:13:01 +0000

DC2: “Stop whining about how the Army is underfunded. It makes no sense.“
————————————————–
It makes perfect sense. Let me whine some more. ; )
A CBO report just suggested lower cost alternatives to upgrading Army aircraft. The study’s impetus appeared to be concern that current plans had an average cost of $3.3 billion a year to reset/modernize Army aviation instead of the $2.2 billion annual average of the past 20 years. Yet the differential between historical and planned costs to upgrade/buy 3,353 Army aircraft amounts to just $25 billion spread out over 23 years. That corresponds closely to the cost of 200 additional F-22s over a far shorter 10 years of additional production.
No comparable capability matches Army Aviation, proven over years of enduring conflict. In contrast, the brief weeks required to achieve air dominance hardly justify excessive F-22s quantities because non-stealthy aircraft can carry on for the long haul once air supremacy is achieved. You do the math: 3,353 Army aircraft essential for the long war vs. 200 too many F-22s for the threat, given the existing 183 F-22s, host of ground/sea air defense and air systems, and the coming F-35.
—————————————————
DC2: “China is much more of a threat to wipe the US off the face of the Earth than an Islamic radical with a suicide vest.“
—————————————————
Mutually-assured destruction (MAD) prevents China/Russia from nuking us. Yet, that concept is foreign to Islamic radicals with nuclear suicide vests in the form of a 40′ containers hosting a nuclear device sailed into and detonated in U.S. harbors. Mad (angry/crazy) terrorists, don’t care about MAD.
They may have a point. How do we respond to such an attack. If we determine from the radiation signature that the nuclear fuel came from Iran, we could return the nuclear favor. But what if it is Pakistan and a device was stolen by disenchanted military officers. What if the device is from the Ukraine, bought on the black market and delivered via Al Qaeda. Who do we retaliate against? What if it is a Chemical attack? A nationstate would never attack due to known consequences. Terrorists would, and unlike 9/11, our retaliatory response might be limited targetwise. Do we nuke Pashtun sections of Pakistan where Al Qaeda is hiding and radiate the whole of Pakistan and India? Don’t think so.
——————————————————
DC2: “I would say the war on terror is more of a phantom threat than war against a threatening nation. You look at how much we have spent in Iraq and tell me what is driving us bankrupt.“
——————————————————-
This vital region requires rigorous defense of shipping lanes where the world’s oil transits. As a former Navy guy who witnessed the incident of a week ago, you understand that. Iran remains a state-sponsor of terror even as Iran/Afghanistan state threats subside. Our presence deters and provides options. Military technology for conventional warfare, proves just as valuable in insurgency. Look at Chechnya, our current threats, and Israeli actions against Gaza and Lebanon to ascertain the value of conventional ground/air forces against terror/insurgent targets and states

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:30:02 +0000

Cole,
Stop whining about how the Army is underfunded. It makes no sense.
And I would say the war on terrorism is more of a phantom threat than war against a threatening nation. You look at how much we have spent in Iraq and tell me what is driving us bankrupt. China is much more of a threat to wipe the US off the face of the Earth than an Islamic radical with a suicide vest.
We would have a balanced budget right now if it weren’t for the addtional dicretionary spending to fund this war.
DC2

By: Cole

Cole — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:13:24 +0000

Roy: “I wonder if,when their military equipment was turning to crap all around them,the Soviets said,“Its okay,we have the Su-30 coming on line”,& “everybody knows that the T-90 tank is the best in the world”,& “its ok,we have no credible threat right now & we have plenty of time to rebuild & build up our military.” We also know that they were “winning” the war in Chechnya & had terrorism on the run,blah,blah,blah,yadda,yadda,yadda,etc. Sound familiar to anybody?“
Reply: Those Chechnya insurgents did a pretty darn good job with their anti-armor hunter-killer teams.
Wikipedia:
The end results of the New Year’s Eve battle were devastating for the Russian side, which lost est. 105 of 120 tanks sent into the city. The entire first battalion of the Maikop Brigade, more than 50% of the 81st Regiment, and hundreds of men from the remaining units had been killed. A high-ranking Russian General Staff officer later said “On January 2nd, we lost contact with our forward units.” According to Maskadov, some 400 Russian tanks and APCs in all were destroyed.
Somehow I suspect the Soviet Union was NOT looking at us and saying there is no credible threat out there.;)
The difference is they spent their way into bankrupty chasing a true threat, while too many stealth aircraft would commence our nation’s turn in that direction chasing a phantom threat…while the real one on the ground goes underfunded.

By: Cole

Cole — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:02:40 +0000

Evangeline: “I hope I don

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:27:22 +0000

I wonder if,when their military equipment was turning to crap all around them,the Soviets said,"Its okay,we have the Su-30 coming on line",& "everybody knows that the T-90 tank is the best in the world",& "its ok,we have no credible threat right now & we have plenty of time to rebuild & build up our military." We also know that they were "winning" the war in Chechnya & had terrorism on the run,blah,blah,blah,yadda,yadda,yadda,etc. Sound familiar to anybody?

By: citanon

citanon — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:34:31 +0000

Cole:
“Check out this link that compares the cost of past fighter aircraft to today’s F-22 in TODAY’S DOLLARS.
http://originmedia.mgnetwork.com/breaking/f22raptor/
Look at the right hand column midway down. The WWII P-51 Mustang cost only $600,000 in today’s dollars. Fighter costs were reasonable all the way up to AND INCLUDING the F-15. The F-22 costs at least one hundred million dollars more in today’s dollars than an F-15…an exponential increase in price…with an exponential DECREASE in threat, because that aircraft was begun prior to the Soviet Union’s demise.“
This comparison is nonsense for many reasons, but you need only one to illustrate why: The income of the American worker has risen far faster than inflation, and when somebody becomes wealthier, you have to pay him more to do the same work. Therefore, unless we are proposing to outsource production of F22’s to China, comparisons of this sort are a bit quaint without the proper economic context.

By: citanon

citanon — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:33:39 +0000

By: Evangeline

Evangeline — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:25:30 +0000

Cole:

By: Cole

Cole — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:33:00 +0000

Evangeline:Also implied in what I was saying is that this applies to all aluminum structures on supersonic aircraft. Over the next five (possibly two or three) years you will need to replace every aluminum part on the F15s. when you consider the fact that, as Doc elaborated, replacing a lonegeron involves removing and replacing the avionics, engines, and wings incremental replacement will quickly exceed the cost of a new aircraft. Fairly soon this will begin to happen to the F16s and F18s too. In other words, at this rate you will need to replace every airframe in the inventory (except the super hornets) in the next ten years.
.….….….….….
Reply: Nobody has been saying that Evangeline. We keep hearing $500K and I read that the F-15 is large enough with sufficient voids to add bracing without removal of lots of items.
In addition, the USAF planned on keeping those 178 Golden Eagles and newer F-15E, anyway.
Evangeline:Lets suppose for a moment that the AAMRAM is the silver standoff bullet you seem to believe it is. Why use fighters at all when you can strap a whole lot of AAMRAMs and a spectacular radar to a B52 or a B1.
The problem with BVR missiles is that you cant see your target ex hypothesi. Thus, you cannot verify that your target is in fact an enemy. As a result standard engagement procedure is now for pilots to verify the target visually. All engagements are de facto within visual range where the deciding factor is maneuverability.
.….….….….…
Reply: I can envision our non-stealthy fighter aircraft flying parallel to the mountains of Taiwan and launching missile after missile at inbound Chinese…and ducking down behind the east face of mountains if the Chinese get a shot off prior to their destruction.
You can employ a combination of TTP and technology to ensure positive ID. If hundreds of Chinese aircraft are inbound, you don’t wait for positive ID. AWACS can follow the enemy from takeoff. And if nothing but our stealthy aircraft are out in enemy territory initially, we shouldn’t be getting too many errant AMRAAM lockups anyway. Choose an established return route for our aircraft that the Chinese could not find due to our stealth.;)
Evangeline: It’s true that our potential enemies may have only about two dozen high tech fighters each. We do have enough F15s to overwhelm them even if they have a 2:1 kill ratio. But I leave you with one question: do you intend to be the one to call the families of the 48 pilots shot down?
Reply: I hate to play the casualty card again, but a lot of Marine/USAF commanders had to write letters to families of nearly 4,000 dead Servicemen…versus 75 valiant airmen that were mostly ground guys.
And while I admire the USAF Major involved in the F-15 incident, and recognize his courage and the severity of his injuries…upwards of 30,000 ground component Soldiers have mental/physical injuries that will be with them the rest of their lives.
Given the extraordinary figher capabilities of our USAF, Navy, Marines and Allies, we can afford to take more risk in the air component than we currently plan/want to finance advances in ground component services that may prevent such deaths/injuries.