Defending the economy

[Navy1960]

When John McCain was shot down over Hanoi in 1967, he was flying an A4 Skyhawk. That jet cost $860,000.

Inflation has risen by 700% since then. So Mr. McCain's A4 cost $6.1 million in 2008 dollars. Applying a generous factor of three for technological improvements, the price for a 2008 Navy F18 fighter should be about $18 million. Instead, we are paying about $90 million for each new fighter. As a result, the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers. This is disarmament without a treaty.

The situation is worse in the Air Force. In 1983, I was in the Pentagon meeting that launched the F-22 Raptor. The plan was to buy 648 jets beginning in 1996 for $60 million each (in 1983 dollars). Now they cost $350 million apiece and the Obama budget caps the program at 187 jets. At least they are safe from cyberattack since no one in China knows how to program the '83 vintage IBM software that runs them.

Wasteful Defense Spending Is a Clear and Present Danger - WSJ.com

Some will argue among them Sarah Palin that cutting Defense Spending during wartime is complete nonsense. However, given the shape of our economy one must consider that from a national security standpoint spending over a Trillion Dollars a year for Defense is somewhat hard to justify when the current system of DoD purchasing is a complete mess. One positive step to reforming this would be to reform contracting to songle souce fixed cost contracts that are time limted. The end result of this would be savings of countless billions of dollars with more hardware to the warfighter that is needed. Take for example the C-17, for years the Air Force has told congress that they no longer need them and yet, we keep on buying them despite the Air Force not asking for them. The same goes for the Alternate Engine for the F-35 and countless numbers of programs in the Defense Department. This is not a matter of taking from the Warfighter , it is a matter of getting the best systems to soldier, sailor , marine and airman to do the job without contractors and the DoD purchasing system costing American taxpayers and national security. The system is so set in it takes courage to change it, but in times where it need to be reformed , this is a good place to start when addressing both the needs of the US Military and the economy.

 

[loosecannon]

China can afford to duplicate our military hardware for 1/10the cost.

We have priced ourselves out of the next arms race.

 

[Saikron]

I'm a liberal nut and I approve of wasting less money

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It doesn't really matter... were going the way of the Wiemar Republic and printing money to buy back our debt.

It's all over.

 

[Navy1960]

we speend around 700 billion base line defense spening a year that does not include War supplementals which make that number rise to over a trillion. The nesxt nation on the list is China at 98 Billion, followed by the UK, France and Russian Federation at around 60 plus billion. I thought you all might be interested in knowing what the nation that we deem as our biggest threat spent last year on Defense 10 billion. Again, I am not an advocate of taking anything away from the Military, but I am an advocate for reforming a system that is bloated beyond reason and wastes vaste sums of money needlessly.

 

[Sallow]

It doesn't really matter... were going the way of the Wiemar Republic and printing money to buy back our debt.

It's all over.

You mean we lost WWI and signed the Treaty of Versaille?

Who knew!

 

[LiberalNut]

the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers.

Sufficient numbers for what exactly?

 

[topspin]

you war mongers are nuts, we spend exponentially too much already

 

[Mr Natural]

the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers.

Sufficient numbers for what exactly?

You know, fighting the Soviet Union c1980.

 

[Navy1960]

the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers.

Sufficient numbers for what exactly?

I believe the article was saying that because of the over bloated contracting system and often time corrupt one as a result the Navy for example ends up with less aircraft because if the high cost of purchasing them when then should cost adjusted for inflation much less than they are. It was an example of how DoD purchasing has become so terribly managed that we as taxpayers should be getting 3 aircraft when we are actually getting one or never should have spent the difference in the first place.

 

[LiberalNut]

I don't disagree that DoD purchasing is a joke. I worked in that area for a long time. I personally signed papers paying for $3,000,000 paint sheds. Paid contractors to literally paint snow! I could tell you some hair raisers I tell ya!

But the fundamental question remains. The structure of the armed forces has to be built around our strategic notions of what we are going to need our military to do. But it's not. Our military has become, more than most people can fathom really, a huge, massive, government jobs program.

 

[Navy1960]

I don't disagree that DoD purchasing is a joke. I worked in that area for a long time. I personally signed papers paying for $3,000,000 paint sheds. Paid contractors to literally paint snow! I could tell you some hair raisers I tell ya!

But the fundamental question remains. The structure of the armed forces has to be built around our strategic notions of what we are going to need our military to do. But it's not. Our military has become, more than most people can fathom really, a huge, massive, government jobs program.

A lot of what I have said has to do with listening to the warfighter, which congress does not do very often nor does most of DoD when it comes to actual needs.. Personally I do not believe that the US Military itself is the issue here more so than the system in place that feeds off it. For example, lets just use the C-17, most in congress keep puchasing them not because, the USAF needs them or for that matter even wants them. They purchase them because it means jobs in their district and as a byproduct to that votes. Take for example the long drawn out bidding war on the USAF Tanker program that has been a farce for the last 15 or so years. Each side in this Bid uses the job creation figure as one of the main reasons to pick them as prime contractor. Now I'm still old enough to remember Kelly Johnson and for some strange reason, when he was asked to design and build the U-2 or any number of Aircraft, frankly I don't think how many jobs it created was at the top of the list.

 

[Saikron]

But it's not. Our military has become, more than most people can fathom really, a huge, massive, government jobs program.

This is 100% spot on, which might be fine with some people.

If we are all grins about spending that money, wouldn't it be better for the country as a whole to instead spend it on, say, education?

Honestly our only real concern right now is that we approximately match the defense goods that China is acquiring. If China makes a go on anybody I honestly believe the EU and US will work together against them.

 

[California Girl]

the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers.

Sufficient numbers for what exactly?

I believe the article was saying that because of the over bloated contracting system and often time corrupt one as a result the Navy for example ends up with less aircraft because if the high cost of purchasing them when then should cost adjusted for inflation much less than they are. It was an example of how DoD purchasing has become so terribly managed that we as taxpayers should be getting 3 aircraft when we are actually getting one or never should have spent the difference in the first place.

It's an excellent topic, Navy. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone who's responded to your OP is actually has the intellect to understand the article or your comments.

Much of the problem, certainly in the US - and to a lesser extent - other countries such as Britain - lies in the 'holy grail' attitude towards the military. I have long advocated not for cuts that put our troops at risk, or that denies them the absolute best possible equipment we can provide, but most definitely FOR tighter controls for private contracts for defense companies. These contracts are seen by many private sector providers as, basically, a licence to print money - taxpayers money. That has got to stop.

Unfortunately, I think our politicians are not brave enough to tackle this extraordinary waste. Mainly because whichever 'side' tries to tackle, the other 'side' will use it as an vote winner. I could practically write the tv ads myself 'why does XXX hate our military. He voted against XXX to provide XXX for the men and women who risk their lives for our country."

We need to stop the spin, and stop misrepresenting why politicians vote for or against certain bills. Posters here have used this tactic time and again - mainly because they are too stupid to look behind the media's spin and honestly consider the reason behind the vote.

 

[Navy1960]

the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers.

Sufficient numbers for what exactly?

I believe the article was saying that because of the over bloated contracting system and often time corrupt one as a result the Navy for example ends up with less aircraft because if the high cost of purchasing them when then should cost adjusted for inflation much less than they are. It was an example of how DoD purchasing has become so terribly managed that we as taxpayers should be getting 3 aircraft when we are actually getting one or never should have spent the difference in the first place.

It's an excellent topic, Navy. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone who's responded to your OP is actually has the intellect to understand the article or your comments.

Much of the problem, certainly in the US - and to a lesser extent - other countries such as Britain - lies in the 'holy grail' attitude towards the military. I have long advocated not for cuts that put our troops at risk, or that denies them the absolute best possible equipment we can provide, but most definitely FOR tighter controls for private contracts for defense companies. These contracts are seen by many private sector providers as, basically, a licence to print money - taxpayers money. That has got to stop.

Unfortunately, I think our politicians are not brave enough to tackle this extraordinary waste. Mainly because whichever 'side' tries to tackle, the other 'side' will use it as an vote winner. I could practically write the tv ads myself 'why does XXX hate our military. He voted against XXX to provide XXX for the men and women who risk their lives for our country."

We need to stop the spin, and stop misrepresenting why politicians vote for or against certain bills. Posters here have used this tactic time and again - mainly because they are too stupid to look behind the media's spin and honestly consider the reason behind the vote.

It's a real shame too, because in my humble opinion it's the Military that is being short changed here by all this waste and outright fraud. I have long been of the opinion that there is little need to spend billions of dollars for an Aircraft program that has not met any of the goals stated by any branch of the services other than to provide work and votes for those keep it going. The sad fact is that most of todays funding has to be borrowed from foreign nations and sends us deeper into debt needlessly. Those that risk their lives everyday deserve much better than the system that for example denies them a tanker for over 20 years while congress squabbles over the riches of it or spends countless billions for weapons systems that those brave men and women do not need or want when spending the money in a wise manner makes this nation stable both in terms of its economy and security. Frankly, everytime I see some Senator or member of congress on TV tell me that Social Security is bankrupting this nation and then turns around and approves 22 more aircraft at 6.8 Billion dollars that they were told they did not need I have little faith in. In fact a good question is this, if our nation spends a trillion dollars a year on it's defense, why then are our men and women in combat having to rely sometimes on weapons that have or no spare parts. Perhaps it's because there is a system in place that rewards the contractor and does not look out for the needs of the warfighter, or the American taxpayer.

 

[California Girl]

I believe the article was saying that because of the over bloated contracting system and often time corrupt one as a result the Navy for example ends up with less aircraft because if the high cost of purchasing them when then should cost adjusted for inflation much less than they are. It was an example of how DoD purchasing has become so terribly managed that we as taxpayers should be getting 3 aircraft when we are actually getting one or never should have spent the difference in the first place.

It's an excellent topic, Navy. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone who's responded to your OP is actually has the intellect to understand the article or your comments.

Much of the problem, certainly in the US - and to a lesser extent - other countries such as Britain - lies in the 'holy grail' attitude towards the military. I have long advocated not for cuts that put our troops at risk, or that denies them the absolute best possible equipment we can provide, but most definitely FOR tighter controls for private contracts for defense companies. These contracts are seen by many private sector providers as, basically, a licence to print money - taxpayers money. That has got to stop.

Unfortunately, I think our politicians are not brave enough to tackle this extraordinary waste. Mainly because whichever 'side' tries to tackle, the other 'side' will use it as an vote winner. I could practically write the tv ads myself 'why does XXX hate our military. He voted against XXX to provide XXX for the men and women who risk their lives for our country."

We need to stop the spin, and stop misrepresenting why politicians vote for or against certain bills. Posters here have used this tactic time and again - mainly because they are too stupid to look behind the media's spin and honestly consider the reason behind the vote.

It's a real shame too, because in my humble opinion it's the Military that is being short changed here by all this waste and outright fraud. I have long been of the opinion that there is little need to spend billions of dollars for an Aircraft program that has not met any of the goals stated by any branch of the services other than to provide work and votes for those keep it going. The sad fact is that most of todays funding has to be borrowed from foreign nations and sends us deeper into debt needlessly. Those that risk their lives everyday deserve much better than the system that for example denies them a tanker for over 20 years while congress squabbles over the riches of it or spends countless billions for weapons systems that those brave men and women do not need or want when spending the money in a wise manner makes this nation stable both in terms of its economy and security. Frankly, everytime I see some Senator or member of congress on TV tell me that Social Security is bankrupting this nation and then turns around and approves 22 more aircraft at 6.8 Billion dollars that they were told they did not need I have little faith in. In fact a good question is this, if our nation spends a trillion dollars a year on it's defense, why then are our men and women in combat having to rely sometimes on weapons that have or no spare parts. Perhaps it's because there is a system in place that rewards the contractor and does not look out for the needs of the warfighter, or the American taxpayer.

Well, you know when it comes to the Military, I always 'have their 6'. And I agree, the current situation does not help the Military - in fact, quite the opposite. The bidding and awarding of development contracts is no longer focused on the best equipment for our Military - it is focused on backhanders and backroom deals. It is mired in the 'pork' principles of our congress critters.

 

[Navy1960]

It's an excellent topic, Navy. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone who's responded to your OP is actually has the intellect to understand the article or your comments.

Much of the problem, certainly in the US - and to a lesser extent - other countries such as Britain - lies in the 'holy grail' attitude towards the military. I have long advocated not for cuts that put our troops at risk, or that denies them the absolute best possible equipment we can provide, but most definitely FOR tighter controls for private contracts for defense companies. These contracts are seen by many private sector providers as, basically, a licence to print money - taxpayers money. That has got to stop.

Unfortunately, I think our politicians are not brave enough to tackle this extraordinary waste. Mainly because whichever 'side' tries to tackle, the other 'side' will use it as an vote winner. I could practically write the tv ads myself 'why does XXX hate our military. He voted against XXX to provide XXX for the men and women who risk their lives for our country."

We need to stop the spin, and stop misrepresenting why politicians vote for or against certain bills. Posters here have used this tactic time and again - mainly because they are too stupid to look behind the media's spin and honestly consider the reason behind the vote.

It's a real shame too, because in my humble opinion it's the Military that is being short changed here by all this waste and outright fraud. I have long been of the opinion that there is little need to spend billions of dollars for an Aircraft program that has not met any of the goals stated by any branch of the services other than to provide work and votes for those keep it going. The sad fact is that most of todays funding has to be borrowed from foreign nations and sends us deeper into debt needlessly. Those that risk their lives everyday deserve much better than the system that for example denies them a tanker for over 20 years while congress squabbles over the riches of it or spends countless billions for weapons systems that those brave men and women do not need or want when spending the money in a wise manner makes this nation stable both in terms of its economy and security. Frankly, everytime I see some Senator or member of congress on TV tell me that Social Security is bankrupting this nation and then turns around and approves 22 more aircraft at 6.8 Billion dollars that they were told they did not need I have little faith in. In fact a good question is this, if our nation spends a trillion dollars a year on it's defense, why then are our men and women in combat having to rely sometimes on weapons that have or no spare parts. Perhaps it's because there is a system in place that rewards the contractor and does not look out for the needs of the warfighter, or the American taxpayer.

Well, you know when it comes to the Military, I always 'have their 6'. And I agree, the current situation does not help the Military - in fact, quite the opposite. The bidding and awarding of development contracts is no longer focused on the best equipment for our Military - it is focused on backhanders and backroom deals. It is mired in the 'pork' principles of our congress critters.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJVUQIwb-iM[/ame]

I thought you might enjoy that .

 

[Navy1960]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEAm1n4a3f0[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

It is hard to compare the plane that John McCain flew to todays aircraft.

Todays airplanes have much more advances in avionics. One plane can deliver a bomb on target 100% of the time while McCains A-4 would take a dozen planes with half being shot down.

McCain and his buddies ended up as POWs because they were much more vulnerable than todays pilots.

 

[Navy1960]

It is hard to compare the plane that John McCain flew to todays aircraft.

Todays airplanes have much more advances in avionics. One plane can deliver a bomb on target 100% of the time while McCains A-4 would take a dozen planes with half being shot down.

McCain and his buddies ended up as POWs because they were much more vulnerable than todays pilots.

I'm fully aware of what an A-4 can and can't do, as for the F-35 what the author was trying to say is that given the costs of A-4 to produce the aircraft with todays avionics, weapons, and survivability it would cost much less to produce. The costs contained in the F-35 do NOT reflect it's capabilites but rather a lot of those costs reflect the contractors costs for delays, over-runs, profit, R&D, etc. Give you a really good example, the F-35 as expensive as it is, still requires an aviator to fly it. If that aviator is not up to the task then the aircraft is not worth the thrust needed to move it forward. In fact for the high cost of the aircraft itself, in testing the aircraft has failed miserably against much less cabable counterparts. As for targeting of munitions while there has been a dramatic increase in the accuracy of munitions , with the advent of GPS, advanced optics, and other types of missiles and Air to Ground munitions, those can mounted on any number of aircraft. The authors point is a valid one , in that it points out that aircraft like the F-35 while very capable, the cost of the aircraft does not reflect the true cost of the aircraft alone and because purchasing at DoD is in such bad shape, you can for the price of one F-35 purchase 3 aircraft with the same capability in a refined system. Want a really good example of this, look no further than the the same exact company selling the F-16IN " super Viper " to India with super cruise capabilites and the same avionics package as the F-35 at half the price. Or perhaps another example would be the F-15 "silent Eagle" that out performs the F-35 in every catagory and is a proven combat aircraft and has "super cruise" which the F-35 does not and vectored thrust at 3/4's the cost. Given this you start to see that big bloated programs like the JSF have little to do with the Warfighter and a lot to do with the contractor when it should be the other way around.