Congress & Pentagon Can Do Better About Some Planned Budget Cuts!

JimofPennsylvan

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
576
Reaction score
124
Points
80
It looks like Congress and the Pentagon are poised to make a truly big mistake in phasing out the A-10 plane by 2020 which they expect will save $3.7 billion over this time frame. The A-10 has the nicknames Warthog or Tankbuster its unique military value is that it can provide close air support for ground troops it has a Gatling gun in its nose that can fire nearly 4000 rounds a minute bullets that can even penetrate tanks! It's also unique in that it can fly at a relatively low speed over a battlefield so that the pilot has time to target and unload devastating firepower on a lot of targets; it also has an extremely solid design which allows it to withstand ground fire to a much greater degree than other air force planes and provide increased survivor ability to the pilot! If one watched TV in the 1990's during America'a First Gulf War the media showed a lot of film on this plane watching this plane it is like watching a fast action war video game with its destructive power the Air force has no airplane like it.



The reason that the Congress/Pentagon decision here seems so foolish is why shape this decision as an all or nothing proposition. Why not cut the A-10 plane program from the 300 today to 100 or even seventy-five. I bet the air Force didn't even have more than two dozen A-10's in the air on any single day in the theater of Iraq or Afghanistan over the last thirteen years. If the U.S. goes to war it takes a significant amount of time to move our ground troops to the theater in question certainly that would be enough time to move the needed size squadron of a-10's to that theater. The point being the Air force doesn't need to have a 300 plane fleet spread out all over the world it could function with a 100 plane fleet and move the needed number of planes to the war zone when needed remembering to with the size of the Army it seems like America will have going into the future it will only be enough to fight two wars at one time.


It seems like the prevailing expert assessment is that if the Air Force ends the A-10 program it will cost American soldiers lives in any major combat ground operation in the future because no Air Force weapons capabilities can match the A-10. Why are American authorities completely eliminating this weapon system to produce such an abhorrent result pare it down yes to save money but leave enough to support one and a half major wars what common sense calls for!
 

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,581
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Granny says ya can thank Mitch McConnell fer dat...
:eusa_clap:
US ON TRACK FOR NARROWEST BUDGET GAP SINCE 2008
May. 12, 2014 ~ WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. government ran a big surplus in April, thanks to a flood of tax payments that helped keep the budget on track for the lowest annual deficit in six years.
The Treasury Department says April's surplus totaled $106.9 billion, down slightly from last April's $112.9 billion surplus. The government typically runs a surplus during April, when individual tax returns are due and corporations must make quarterly tax payments.

Through the first seven months of the 2014 budget year, which began Oct. 1, the deficit totals $306.4 billion. That's down 37 percent from the same period last year.

The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting a deficit of $492 billion for the full budget year. That would be the narrowest gap since 2008.

US on track for narrowest budget gap since 2008
 

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,581
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Defense cutbacks mean financial insecurity for troops...
:eek:
Military Service Members Face Financial Anxiety
May 23, 2014 — Military service members are facing on-going financial concerns with 77% of them saying they are worried, according to a recent survey commissioned by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC).
The survey also found that 57% say they are very worried about the potential loss of income and job security resulting from defense cuts and downsizing. "Men and women in uniform face many challenges and daily sacrifices while serving our country," said Susan Keating, NFCC President and CEO. "Financial concerns shouldn't be one of them. The NFCC is committed to ensuring that members of the military, veterans and their families have access to the financial tools and information they need to live a financially stable life."

The survey also found that for some service members their economic situation has not improved with 28% who are now more worried than they were 12 months ago about how their financial situation will affect their future in the military. A majority or 55% believe they are ill-prepared to cope with an emergency financially, the survey said. "NFCC member agencies can assist military personnel through the Sharpen Your Financial Focus program which includes a dedicated military-specific component," she said.

When compared to that of their civilian counterparts, the mobile nature of the military lifestyle creates an extra financial challenge for those that serve, said J.J. Montanaro, a financial planner for USAA, the San Antonio-based financial institution. Frequent moves can make it difficult for military spouses in the workforce and service members who own a home and receive orders don't necessarily have the luxury of being able to ride out the ups and downs of the real estate market, he said. Deployments and separation are another aspect of the mobile lifestyle that presents financial challenges.

MORE
 

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,240
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
Granny says ya can thank Mitch McConnell fer dat...
:eusa_clap:
US ON TRACK FOR NARROWEST BUDGET GAP SINCE 2008
May. 12, 2014 ~ WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. government ran a big surplus in April, thanks to a flood of tax payments that helped keep the budget on track for the lowest annual deficit in six years.
The Treasury Department says April's surplus totaled $106.9 billion, down slightly from last April's $112.9 billion surplus. The government typically runs a surplus during April, when individual tax returns are due and corporations must make quarterly tax payments.

Through the first seven months of the 2014 budget year, which began Oct. 1, the deficit totals $306.4 billion. That's down 37 percent from the same period last year.

The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting a deficit of $492 billion for the full budget year. That would be the narrowest gap since 2008.

US on track for narrowest budget gap since 2008
Now it's Mitch McConnell, eh?

:lol:
 

longly

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2013
Messages
373
Reaction score
44
Points
66
I might see this a little different than most others; I think it is a bad idea to reduce the size of the force, it is not big enough as it is. And it is a worst idea to reduce combat units. They are the tip of the spear and without them there can be no victory which is the whole purposed of the military. Instead of reducing all units equally take the cuts from support units, cross train combats troops to fill in the gaps as an additional duty and keep those guys with the combat skills needed to win. There is an negative aspect to this, but is unavoidable; these cuts will disproportionately effect black troops and there by increase black unemployment. Blacks are over represented in support units and under represented in combat units. But as I said the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things not improve society.
 

Navy1960

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
5,821
Reaction score
1,321
Points
48
Location
Arizona
It looks like Congress and the Pentagon are poised to make a truly big mistake in phasing out the A-10 plane by 2020 which they expect will save $3.7 billion over this time frame. The A-10 has the nicknames Warthog or Tankbuster its unique military value is that it can provide close air support for ground troops it has a Gatling gun in its nose that can fire nearly 4000 rounds a minute bullets that can even penetrate tanks! It's also unique in that it can fly at a relatively low speed over a battlefield so that the pilot has time to target and unload devastating firepower on a lot of targets; it also has an extremely solid design which allows it to withstand ground fire to a much greater degree than other air force planes and provide increased survivor ability to the pilot! If one watched TV in the 1990's during America'a First Gulf War the media showed a lot of film on this plane watching this plane it is like watching a fast action war video game with its destructive power the Air force has no airplane like it.



The reason that the Congress/Pentagon decision here seems so foolish is why shape this decision as an all or nothing proposition. Why not cut the A-10 plane program from the 300 today to 100 or even seventy-five. I bet the air Force didn't even have more than two dozen A-10's in the air on any single day in the theater of Iraq or Afghanistan over the last thirteen years. If the U.S. goes to war it takes a significant amount of time to move our ground troops to the theater in question certainly that would be enough time to move the needed size squadron of a-10's to that theater. The point being the Air force doesn't need to have a 300 plane fleet spread out all over the world it could function with a 100 plane fleet and move the needed number of planes to the war zone when needed remembering to with the size of the Army it seems like America will have going into the future it will only be enough to fight two wars at one time.


It seems like the prevailing expert assessment is that if the Air Force ends the A-10 program it will cost American soldiers lives in any major combat ground operation in the future because no Air Force weapons capabilities can match the A-10. Why are American authorities completely eliminating this weapon system to produce such an abhorrent result pare it down yes to save money but leave enough to support one and a half major wars what common sense calls for!
While I tend to agree on the need to keep the A-10, because I am not convinced that the F-35 will come anywhere close to replacing it as a good CAS platform. There is a need to perhaps have DoD pull their collective heads out of the dark reaches of where they are now and finally start to buy smartly to the needs of the warfighter and not to what the Defense Industry is telling them they need. The facts are the A-10 has is a very old airframe and is in serious need of replacement, and that's the key, don't throw out a proven winner, improve upon it!. That way perhaps by finally purchasing to need and keeping these contractors in line, we might realize a savings and find our Defense budget naturally falling rather than having to make random cuts.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top