Comments on: Big Changes for the Defense Budget

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:31:48 +0000

Good Morning Folks,
Well the Genie is out of the bottle with the EADS winning the tanker contract. Why not but a superior Russian fighter at one third the price of the F-35?
For Fox three: I guess the reason that U.S. trooprs are not picking up the AK-74 on the battlefield is because other then serving as a prop for bin Laden pgotp ops the only licenced countries to produce the AK-74 are India and South Korea, neither of which Bush has invaded. Also SOF types have been seen in the current wars sholdering AK-47’s. I think the guys who trust their lives to a rifle know sometbning that the DoD swivel chair commandos don’t.
Though I guess you have forgotten Vietnam, maybe you were to young where American ground troops willing exchanged there M-16’s for AK-47’s where ever they could. Or just this past year when a shoot off with two short piston gas operated (AK systems) beat out the M-4 that is Army issue in a 10K test that only went 6K before the M-4 cra**ed out.
Oh Fox Three, don’t bother mentioning the Chinese Type-090 Assualt Rifle.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:10:12 +0000

@ Crass
$78,400,000,000 is being laundered to the USCG so that they can continue their top secret war against the predator machines that live under the south pole.

By: Crass

Crass — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:10:08 +0000

This ought to be interesting…
“Cooper hopes the study will spark a broader debate about the need to reform national security, with new emphases on cybersecurity and nonmilitary government agencies.“
Expect a new manual on fighting from the military branches. The Air Force will most likely get more money because of their new commerical. The “Above All” motto now says that the AF focuses on Air, Space, and Cyberspace. The AF will get a bigger budget for cyberspace security, but will most likely have to work with the FBI, CIA, and most likely NSA because of their Internet operations.
@Byron Skinner -
There is a big difference between Canada and Russia and having our military products built in one country or the other.
$515 Billion — Pentagon Budget (without supplementals)
27% — $139,050,000,000 — Army
28% — $144,200,000,000 — Air Force
29% — $149,350,000,000 — Navy
84% — $436,600,000,000 — Total
Where is the other 16% or &78,400,000,000 Billion going? The “nonmilitary government agencies? Or is it going to be distributed among the 3 services, because the above numbers are only what they “asked for?”

By: Mini

Mini — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:49:31 +0000

I’m all for change. And a review of this sort has been a long time coming.
But I continually wonder whether the Chinese (or even Russian) threats are severely over-hyped.
Even if the world went totally pear-shaped and the US found itself countering military threats from both China and Russia at the same time I can’t see them remaining a threat for long.
The US alone spends more annually on their defence forces than the total combined rest of the world.
The US shouldn’t be getting bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan for this long with no foreseeable direction forward. Sometimes it appears the power brokers choose to ignore or don’t learn from history’s lessons.
There needs to be a major re-think and not continuing to do things the same way just because that’s the way we’ve always done it.
It’s humourous sometimes that at the bottom of the food chain in the mere NCO ranks we’re continually told to remain flexible because plans can and will change.
But the very flexibility that is supposed to be instilled on each of us at the bottom of the pond is not reflected at the top of the same food chain.
The level of bureaucracy is beyond a joke.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:19:28 +0000

Good Evening Folks,
Talk about money savings for the Air Force.
We have been told that the main justification for the F-22 is the next generation Russian and Chinese fighters. Well here’s a news flash the Russian Su-35 is now in production, 15 off the line so far and it’s for sale at a bargain nasement price of $35 Million each, delivered. India just bought 8 of the first 15.
Why not just buy the Su-35 and stop the F-22 and F-35 programs. This looks like an money saver to me. I don’t want to here about the foreign mafg. of weapons systems the Stryker is made in Canada because U.S. workers make to much money and have to pay for their health benifits.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:43:35 +0000

Fund more for our forces in Iraq & less for the DC bureaucrats.
Thanks or Fire the DC bureaucrats.
Win this war NOW.
More armor, more tanks?
More IFVs, drones, UCAV, artillary, Intelligence,
Improved air Recon vs satellite recon.
Move it.

By: Nemo

Nemo — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:55:37 +0000

Maybe the USAF could save a small bit of money to buy a couple more F-22s if they made a simple personnel change and started using enlisted pilots instead of officers?

By: Benjamin Fan

Benjamin Fan — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:18:47 +0000

Please, let’s hope this doesn’t lead to more MRAPs at the expense of, say, badly needed Air Force tankers.

By: Poskiki

Poskiki — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:34:03 +0000

I tend to agree with this action. The thing is they all support each other but right now the Navy isnt doing the hard work, the work thats straining the military. The rail guns they are testing are great for some future war but right now that money could be much more effectively spent on equipment for combat troops.
The AF needs money to buy tankers and replace fighters that are old repair others. Equipment and pay is more than ever and they mone needs to be shifted were its needed, not stay where its traditionally gone.
The Pentagon and for that matter, the entire federal govt needs a major overhaul. Bueacracy has gotten so bad, its killing itself; waste, corruption and lack of oversight is too exceptible these days in he govt.