Does America need a bigger military?

[Ought Six]

Gd:

Upgrading forty-year old technology is not the answer for a few years from now, when an upgraded F-15 could come on line. It is certainly not the answer for the next few decades. The Su-30 is already a superior aircraft in very significant ways to the F-15, and that technology is already nearly a couple decades old.

The costs on the Raptor would be much less if the Congress stopped constantly changing the problem. But even a pair of Raptors can do the work of several pairs of F-15s. The enemy cannot kill what it cannot see or lock weapons onto.

[Glockd]

True, the SU-30 is a nice ride, but in the game of air dominance, it is now and has always been more important to "see" the other guy first. If I can radar lock a guy at 80 miles in an unstealthy platform and Fox his ass into a smoking hole, who gives a damn if he can out turn me. He's dead, and you cant out turn that.

The funny thing about sustained combat operations is that it eats the shit out of things, and 100 Raptors is going to get eaten up pretty damn quick with gripes and downs. Hard down on the deck might as well be a kill for the gomers, cause either way, our jet aint flying. Thats 100 today, and we all know that attrition will knock that back some, human errors and broken fuses happen (ask that B-2 crew about that one) whereas with an upgraded Eagle (an upgraded F-15E is in production currently for Korea, so the line is still open) could come off the assembly line tomorrow, giving us 2-300 for the same money (with spares) with all the electronic bells and whistles of the F-22, including a radar that guarantees the other guy does not get close enough to shoot and when partnered with the F-35 guarantees total air superiority while maintaining enough spare jets to go around. I like more numbers, having seen the first hand effects of shit breaking "on the line."

Besides, if Boeing gets their way, we could see a few B-1's transformed into AMRAAM buses and whole regiments of SU's and Migs falling to a pair of Bones and a single E-3.

Its too damned expensive for what we get Ought. Wanna argue about the Stuper Hornet next. I can really rail against that POS.

[usda]

However, we sure as hell could use the 8 Army Divisions lost under Clinton, we have an aging surface fleet, an aging AF tanker force, a shitty carrier tanker force, and are in desperate need of a new amphibious assault vehicle and heavy lift vehicle for the Corps.

Glock

Well, it is hard to keep up with military needs and keep your rich oil and banking friends adequately funded at the same time. Choices, choices! But Bush tried, Clinton lied but it doesn't matter now.

On the other hand technocratic wonder machines vs plain ole planes that fly, do the job and there are plenty of them...I would go for the latter.

[Ought Six]

Gd:

"True, the SU-30 is a nice ride, but in the game of air dominance, it is now and has always been more important to "see" the other guy first."

That is kinda the point of a stealthy fighter, and why the F-22 is superior to anything else out there. It has stealth, supercruise and supermanuverability. The F-35 has one of those three, and a very limited range to boot. The F-22 can lock onto, launch on and destroy six enemy aircraft before they can even see it. It can then move in, outmaneuver them while they are unable to get a weapons lock on the F-22, and destroy four more with shorter range missiles. And it can get their more quickly using less fuel due to supercruise, which means far more combat and loiter time.

If you think the Russians and Euros are not developing their own stealth fighters, guess again. With the F-22 we have a huge head start on everyone else. To throw that away and insure we lose air superiority would be insane. Establishing air superiority early-on is the cornerstone of our entire conventional military strategy. Without that, we are well and truly screwed, and will pay with the lives our fighting men and women. A warmed-over F-15 is just not going to cut it on tomorrow's battlefield.

[Glockd]

Depends upon how warmed over.

Oh, and stealth goes right out the window when you start hanging bags of gas on the damn things. Given the current state of our tanker fleet, hanging bags is going to be the norm. Power projection is a bitch if you have to drag your jets 3,000 miles before they enter the combat zone. How close are we going to get to China Ought?

So, should the AF have stealthy wonderjets, or should they have gone to the guys in blue who can park an airfield (aka carrier battle group) in the bad guys stretch of pond?

With 100 Raptors and battle skies the size of which we have not seen in years, who plugs the very sizeable gaps? If the pitiful few F-22's are not in the right place, or cannot cover multiple air combat corridors, I dont care much that they shot down all these inbound strikers when all those managed to get in and destroy home base.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by dyrt

All we have to do is declare peace, destroy our weapons, open our arms and the world will rush to embrace. Putin will do the same declaring we will be friends forever. The Chinese will apologize and ask what we need. Islamic terrorists all over the world will come in from the cold to embrace the Jew and Christian. There will be joy in the land of milk and honey.

Ahhhhh, utopia. Visions of Marxist idiots.

So this is a response to whom? My Eisenhower quote? He knew more about war than all of the presidents since then combined.

It is typical to see a response to any statement to decrease our military spending with a straw man tactic. There is a level of military spending appropriate for national defense and nothing but national defense, which I support. However, our spending right now is consistent with neo con Empire building. I already posted an article demonstrating that we are still spending as much on the military almost as much as all other countries combined, and it has been that way for years.

Eisenhower was also the first to warn us about the military industrial complex. The problem with gearing up for WWII was once the factories were working at high volume and corporation's were raking in high profits, they needed more military conflicts to keep going.

And when you examine what's in those massive Dept of Defense bills and bloated Pentagon funding you find pet projects legislators are pushing because the factories building that tank or plane is within their district or state and provides jobs. So if we need it or not, the project continues. Then there are projects that look like a dangerous fixation, like the Osprey (the aircraft that takes off like a helicopter and flies like a plane). That project came in way over budget and cost us American casualties.

Then in 2001, we caught on to the enormous waste at the Pentagon. $1.3 trillion was unaccounted for and the news media found out. They had Donald Rumsfeld on the hot seat and all he could say was they flat out couldn't account for it. Could a CEO in the private sector say something like this and not get fired?

Many people would connect this money to secret projects and Black Ops that have been carried out without congressional approval. For example, predatory spy satellites, Black Ops within Iran for years, or developing a new generation of small, tactical nuclear weapons that can fit into a briefcase (while we preach non proliferation to others).

We need to quit providing a blank check and no accountability for the DOD and Pentagon.

[Ought Six]

Gd:

"Depends upon how warmed over."

Is the F-15 going to get stealth? How about supercruise? Supermanuverability? No? Because an F-15 is a big, hot IR target that can be seen from over a hundred miles away without using RADAR at all. Russian aircraft have good RADARs, though not as good as ours. But they have outstanding imaging infrared systems with full targeting capability, and long-range IR missiles to go with them. That largely negates any RADAR advantage we can give the F-15. They also have the MiG-35, a Mach 3+ fighter with an incredibly high ceiling, a massively powerful RADAR, a targeting and battle management system that digitally networks with other fighters to assign the most logical targets to the right aircraft, and missiles with a 100 mile range that far outrange our AAMRAMs. A flight of MiG-35s can come in above any F-15 flight and shoot down at them from beyond their weapons range, and the only thing the F-15 can do is run for its life. With the F-22, they could not even detect it before it was launching AAMRAMs at them from optimum range for a good kill. And China already has MiG-35s.

The F-22 will give air superiority. The forty year old F-15 will give the enemy air superiority. You just cannot talk your way around that fact.
----------

"Oh, and stealth goes right out the window when you start hanging bags of gas on the damn things. Given the current state of our tanker fleet, hanging bags is going to be the norm. Power projection is a bitch if you have to drag your jets 3,000 miles before they enter the combat zone."

The Israelis are already developing stealthy FAST packs for the F-35 to extend its short range. The same can and will be done for the F-22, just as it was done for the F-15. And as I keep saying (and you keep trying to ignore), supercruise gives the F-22 a tremendous advantage on fuel consumption over the F-15, which must use fuel-hogging afterburners to get to any emergency in time to do anything about it. Any savvy enemy is going to try to set up an attack strategy that pulls fighter one way, then the other, forcing them to burn up their fuel. That is another reason the F-15 is obsolete.
----------

"How close are we going to get to China Ought?"

For land-based aircraft, Okinawa, Japan, South Korea, and if things get ugly, Taiwan and perhaps Thailand and/or Vietnam. Close enough for you?

[Ought Six]

M:

"We need to quit providing a blank check and no accountability for the DOD and Pentagon."

We all agree on government waste. That is not an argument for throwing more money at bloated, unsustainable welfare state programs by further gutting our military.

If you want to talk about waste, fraud and abuse, how about the 60 Minutes piece on Medicare fraud a few years ago? The reporters interviewed government Medicare fraud investigators who were fired because they insisted on doing their jobs and not bury fraud cases. According to these investigators, who each had years on the job, 50% of all Medicare claims are fraudulent. 50%. Investigations were blocked by liberal members of Congress who cried "racism!" every time there were arrests for Medicare fraud. It turns out that in almost every case, fraud rings run by gangs of illegal immigrants were to blame. There is also the fact that the in the poorest neighborhoods, money from Medicare fraud was one of the major sources of cash inflow in those neighborhoods. The congressvermin in question knew that stopping that fraud would be economically devasting to their constituents, and so successfully fought to get those investigators fired for just doing their job.

You predictably have loads of outrage for anything that can be laid at Bush's feet, and none whatsoever for massive fraud, corruption and abuse supported by liberals.

[Michael]

06:

And who sponsored and passed their medicare drug benefits legislation in 2003 with a legion of Pharmaceutical Corporation and HMO lobbyists in Washington DC. That added $13 trillion to our longterm unfunded fiscal commitments according to the GAO. Republicans. Doesn't fit the stereotype but there it is, Republicans directly involved in benefits.

Spending is spending. It doesn't matter if it is for social programs, benefits or the military, it is all SPENDING. Spending on everything needs to be substantially reduced.

What I keep hearing is it is always the Democrats fault and all we have to do is cut way back on social programs and benefits, then we can turn around and increase military SPENDING. But it is still spending. Compared to other countries, it is excessive spending.

Bush came to office with a national debt at approximately $5 trillion with a surplus left by the Clinton administration. The surplus was gone the next year and the national debt has currently been estimated after the bail outs in the $11-$12 trillion range. The longterm unfunded fiscal commitments when he came to office were at approximately $20 trillion, and currently the estimate is in the $60 trillion range. So that is more than doubling the national debt and tripling the unfunded longterm fiscal commitments. This includes the longterm cost of our mideast wars estimated (by accrual accounting methods) at over $3 trillion.

And why do we need over 750 military bases worldwide for "national defense"? That includes Germany and Japan who do not want our bases. Our bases are there because of treaties written over 60 years ago.

So what I am saying is all spending needs to be substantially reduced due to the extra ordinarily gargantuan debt we have run up.

[Ought Six]

I am all for closing our bases in Europe, South Korea and Japan. We should also withdraw from NATO once Afghanistan is stable. And we should get the government back within its Tenth Amendment boundaries so that is only governs, instead of being a massive social services provider business. I wish the American people wanted that, too. But they do not. They want security, American military dominance in the world, and lots of freebies from Uncle Sugar. And they want the other guy to pay for it all. So long as that continues, little will change.

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

M:We all agree on government waste. That is not an argument for throwing more money at bloated, unsustainable welfare state programs by further gutting our military.

If you want to talk about waste, fraud and abuse, how about the 60 Minutes piece on Medicare fraud a few years ago? The reporters interviewed government Medicare fraud investigators who were fired because they insisted on doing their jobs and not bury fraud cases. According to these investigators, who each had years on the job, 50% of all Medicare claims are fraudulent. 50%. Investigations were blocked by liberal members of Congress who cried "racism!" every time there were arrests for Medicare fraud. It turns out that in almost every case, fraud rings run by gangs of illegal immigrants were to blame. There is also the fact that the in the poorest neighborhoods, money from Medicare fraud was one of the major sources of cash inflow in those neighborhoods. The congressvermin in question knew that stopping that fraud would be economically devasting to their constituents, and so successfully fought to get those investigators fired for just doing their job.

You predictably have loads of outrage for anything that can be laid at Bush's feet, and none whatsoever for massive fraud, corruption and abuse supported by liberals.

Medicare fraud is not run by poor illegals, it is done by doctors and major medical suppliers and hospitals, mostly good ol' homegrown USA companies. They USE the poor and elderly to get SSN's to allow them to bill huge numbers of fake procedures.

There are a number of signs that similar fraud is occurring in our defense costs, and both would much better off with good oversight, an area where Bush and the Republicans not only has no ABILITY, they have no INTEREST. (Perhaps the two issues are related, yes?)

There is no way the military is "gutted" with as much or more money than the rest of the world combined.

[Glockd]

Yeah Dave, come talk to me when you have some front line experience.

When you have had to pull double duty because of shortages, when you have had an Assistant Gunner with 6 months time in service, trained as a med tech, suddenly thrust upon you and has on fucking clue what an M-60 is or how to help me run the gun. You have no clue what gutted truly means. I could write page after page about the missing or simply worn out equipment that was on hand the morning of 9/11 and the shortages we suffered through for years after. I drove an unarmoured Chevy Suburban around the Al Jaber Airbase on the first day of the war because we did not have enough Uparmoured HMMWV's available due to a dismal shortage of spare parts. Not too comforting when people are shooting shit at you, and there was no place for my gunner to mount his MG which meant we had to unass and expose ourselves had we needed to return fire, and firing on the move was out of the question.

[BoneDaddy]

Originally Posted by Fiddlerdave

Medicare fraud is not run by poor illegals, it is done by doctors and major medical suppliers and hospitals, mostly good ol' homegrown USA companies. They USE the poor and elderly to get SSN's to allow them to bill huge numbers of fake procedures.

That isn't accurate. Most cases of medicare 'fraud' is conducted by foreign nationals. You do not have to be a citizen to be a provider of services in the system. That is a major flaw in my opinion.

However, (according to 2k figures) the biggest travesty of the system is that only 25% of every dollar actually goes to patient care. 7% goes to the government. The remaining 68% is gobbled up by insurance companies who manage the program. They are immune from their lack of oversight as well. No one wishes to talk about that.

[BoneDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

According to these investigators, who each had years on the job, 50% of all Medicare claims are fraudulent. 50%.

I find that hard to believe.

Investigations were blocked by liberal members of Congress who cried "racism!" every time there were arrests for Medicare fraud. It turns out that in almost every case, fraud rings run by gangs of illegal immigrants were to blame.

I certainly don't believe that. The most recent cases have involved foreign nationals, but they were here legally, went into business with government loans, and leave the country when the heat starts closing in. They change their names and return to start the cycle all over again.

There is also the fact that the in the poorest neighborhoods, money from Medicare fraud was one of the major sources of cash inflow in those neighborhoods. The congressvermin in question knew that stopping that fraud would be economically devasting to their constituents, and so successfully fought to get those investigators fired for just doing their job.

The only time 'investigators' were assigned were special cases. The wheelchair scams in Houston come to mind. Usually, the integrity audits are performed by a third party. The biggest cases of fraud currently are in the Medicaid system, not in medicare. They usually involve diapers.

If you complain, the government won't listen. I know. I have filed FBI reports regarding this matter. They simply will not believe you. It's all a dog and pony show.

[Ought Six]

I am only repeating what came out of the mouths of Medicare fraud investigators interviewed on the Sixty Minutes program.

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

I am only repeating what came out of the mouths of Medicare fraud investigators interviewed on the Sixty Minutes program.

Yes, you have mentioned that in previous conversations after authoritatively describing the scope of this problem, this mythical show you watched years ago, so long enough they have no record of it on line. That the poor and illegals are responsible for the majority of this fraud is absurd, as well as a 50% fraud rate. Indeed, some poor people were paid by the fraudsters to be able to use their SSN and Medicare account, but its interesting how you seem to believe that they have the main culpability. The poor would be nowhere without some suit handing them $80 and saying sign here. Much of the biggest fraud is a medical provider adding 30 tests, syrgeries and rehab onto some old guy's account who stopped in to have his cold checked or to get diabetes prescriptions.

You might want to get updated with something a little more substantial and reality-based. Tenet Health Care and the huge Columbia Hospital chain ALONE have paid several billions to settle even more billions of dollars worth of Medicare fraud. Many other major hospitals and major medical suppliers have paid to do the same. The crime is not suited to casual ripoff. Its quite an outlay to set up a medical company or Doctor's office (not to mention the cost of the doctor), go throught the Medicare provider applications, checking and approvals.

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by Glockd

Yeah Dave, come talk to me when you have some front line experience.

When you have had to pull double duty because of shortages, when you have had an Assistant Gunner with 6 months time in service, trained as a med tech, suddenly thrust upon you and has on fucking clue what an M-60 is or how to help me run the gun. You have no clue what gutted truly means....

No, I don't, in any immediate personal way, but I consider it one of the most severe problems in our military, and the first spending priority. And from what I read and hear from troops and experts alike, issues remain as well, despite massive increases.

However, these are not overall budget issues, they are allocation and use of available resource issues. One example of what the priorities really are for the defense budget managers:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/30/aer...01defense.html

Washington, D.C. - As part of our annual survey of chief executive pay at America's 500 biggest companies, we took a closer look at aerospace and defense. For the last few years, the sector has jumped on robust defense budgets and a rebounding commercial aerospace market.

In that time, compensation for the leaders of America's largest aerospace and defense concerns has also ballooned. Take the six in the first of the accompanying tables. Their stocks delivered a 30% annualized total return during the companies' last three fiscal years. By our tally, total compensation for those companies' chief executives increased an average 50% annualized during that period.

In Pictures: Aerospace Pay Flying High

For 2007, the average total compensation among aerospace and defense companies in our annual salary survey was $20.6 million, vs. an average $12.8 million for all 500 companies surveyed. The median figure, or midpoint in the range, for the nine aerospace and defense companies in our survey was $14.6 million, vs. a median of $6.5 million for all 500 chief executives in our print rankings.

A standout in the defense category: Raytheon (nyse: RTN - news - people ). Shares of the Waltham, Mass., company have performed admirably, averaging an 18% total return for the three years ending December 2007 and climbing 5% in price so far in 2008. Bulls have applauded the company's business mix--namely its work in surveillance and precision munitions--as well as its track record on executing big government contracts.

In the last three fiscal years (ended December), Raytheon chief William Swanson has seen an 86% annualized increase in his total compensation. That includes a 39% jump from 2006 to 2007 (Editor's note: 2007 compensation figures for Raytheon and Northrop Grumman (nyse: NOC - news - people ) were not captured in our print rankings, which went to press before the companies filed their annual proxy statements last week).

Now maybe I am strange, but I find massive wage increases and bonuses for defense CEO's when business increases because we are at war ridiculous and wasteful, tasteless as well, unless they are being compensated for starting the wars that brought the windfalls.

In any event, the resurgence of the defense gravy train has been quite apparent these past 4 years in many ways, and it is no way to handle this critical need. Especially now that the USA is broke. Whole new paradigms need to be implemented, whatever it takes to end the cushy massive spending the defense parasites (that's the one without M16 in their hands, usually they wear suits as well) live so high on the hog on.

[User]

Originally Posted by Glockd

Yeah Dave, come talk to me when you have some front line experience.

When you have had to pull double duty because of shortages, when you have had an Assistant Gunner with 6 months time in service, trained as a med tech, suddenly thrust upon you and has on fucking clue what an M-60 is or how to help me run the gun. You have no clue what gutted truly means. I could write page after page about the missing or simply worn out equipment that was on hand the morning of 9/11 and the shortages we suffered through for years after. I drove an unarmoured Chevy Suburban around the Al Jaber Airbase on the first day of the war because we did not have enough Uparmoured HMMWV's available due to a dismal shortage of spare parts. Not too comforting when people are shooting shit at you, and there was no place for my gunner to mount his MG which meant we had to unass and expose ourselves had we needed to return fire, and firing on the move was out of the question.

Sounds like the Iraqis didn't want you there.

[Brihard]

Originally Posted by User

Sounds like the Iraqis didn't want you there.

Sounds like a few Iraqis don't want them there. It doesn't take many people to make an insurgency, even if the majority of the locals are ambivalent or are on your side.

[User]

Originally Posted by Brihard

Sounds like a few Iraqis don't want them there. It doesn't take many people to make an insurgency, even if the majority of the locals are ambivalent or are on your side.

I remember reading some time ago, that in 1776 only a third of Americans
were insurgents. Another third were neutral, didn't want to support either
side, and the final third were actively against the insurgency. They
called that last third Tories. The insurgents considered them traitors.
It was that last third that Bendict Arnold chose to defect to.

America was made an independent nation due to a very violent
insurgency, that made heavy use of Indian fighting techniques, ie,
guerilla warfare.

The British called these insurgents 'terrorists' at that time.

[Glockd]

Originally Posted by User

Sounds like the Iraqis didn't want you there.

Saddam and his pack of fucking dogs, yes, your right, they probably didn't.

Their mistake.

[Brihard]

Originally Posted by User

I remember reading some time ago, that in 1776 only a third of Americans
were insurgents. Another third were neutral, didn't want to support either
side, and the final third were actively against the insurgency. They
called that last third Tories. The insurgents considered them traitors.
It was that last third that Bendict Arnold chose to defect to.

America was made an independent nation due to a very violent
insurgency, that made heavy use of Indian fighting techniques, ie,
guerilla warfare.

The British called these insurgents 'terrorists' at that time.

Having a third of the population in active insurgency is absolutely massive.

Insurgent numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan number in the thousands, possibly tens of thousands. A very, very small portion of the population.

Comparing Iraq to revolutionary America is like comparing apples and briefcases.

[caonacl]

Just remember who thought we didn't.