U.S. military dominance ‘no longer assured,’ says House committee

[Dragonlady]

Never seen that story before....LOL Like every year for the last 60 years No, there is no other nation even close to us militarily

Well, I don't know about every year, but certainly in 1981, as we were saying goodbye to the disaster known as the Carter Presidency.

Carter ramped down the military after VietNam ended.
What a travesty

No, that was Ford, with Carter batting clean-up, wasn't it? And there's no escaping the idea that Carter went too far in finishing the job.

Carter approved the funding and development of the smart weapons that helped win Desert Storm. As a naval engineer, he knew what needed to be done.

 

[rightwinger]

Relatively small cuts in DoD spending (10-20 bil/year) , could fund quite easily a huge 10-15 year infrastructure revitalization project that would employ way more people then are lost in DoD cuts.

Again liberal logic blows my mind away, so you want to tear away highly paid Union military workers pay roll and give it to $10 dollar and hour workers?

for temp jobs in construction re building the nations infrastructure?

Weird? Were are you going to get the Union vote from?

So strange

Again total bullshit on your part

R&D currently spent on defense can be spent on medical, energy, transportation, communications and other technologies at a greater benefit to our country

Infrastructure jobs pay as well as defense jobs

Construction jobs are Temporary in case you Didn't know

After 80 plus years are they still Building the hoover damn?

Military jobs are forever

Defense jobs are temporary. We are no longer building Sherman Tanks

 

[rightwinger]

As is always the case toward the end of Leftist government, the US means to defend itself is once again in jeopardy... .

Such is, of course, the nature of those who advocate for Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... and never less so, than where such subversives are elected to the office of the President of the United States.

From the Article:

"The House Armed Services Committee is warning that it should no longer be assumed that the U.S. military is either the most technologically superior or the most dominant fighting force, an assessment that comes just as the rise of the Islamic State and Russia is posing a real challenge to the United States.

“[W]ith the continued diffusion of advanced technology, U.S. military technological superiority is no longer assumed and the dominance U.S. forces have long enjoyed in the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is no longer assured,” the committee wrote in a report detailing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2016. “Such a security environment demands that the nation’s armed forces are agile, efficient, ready, and lethal.”

The committee said that trend is especially worrying in light of the various national security challenges that have come up in the last year. Those include “the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, growing instability across the Middle East and Africa, and a revanchist Russian Federation.”

The committee said those threats “are a reminder of the continuing need for U.S. military engagement, presence, commitment, and strength to defend U.S. interests, deter would-be aggressors, and reassure allies and partners.”

The NDAA doesn’t fund the military, but it does set policy direction for the military, and authorizes specific spending levels within the Department of Defense. The 2016 NDAA authorizes $515 billion in discretionary spending, and $89.2 billion for “overseas contingency operations.”

The overseas operations account is generally used to fund war operations, but this year, it has become controversial because Republicans are using that account to boost Defense Department funding above the cap on spending that was agreed in 2011.

The Obama administration requested a total of almost $612 billion in total Defense Department funding, and the House NDAA matches that once mandatory spending items are added.

One frustration in Congress has been the Obama administration’s reluctance to send military aid to Ukraine to help that country stave off pro-Russia insurgents, who are still receiving support from Russian forces. The NDAA, however, would call on the U.S. to send this lethal aid to Ukraine. ... .

Perhaps if the Pentagon had spent money on needed items instead of spending nearly 1.5 trillion dollars on one weapons system that we don't need and doesn't work, we'd have a real military. But wait, even with this bloatware in the budget, we actually DO have a real military that actually does know how to fight. So I guess you are going to have to pedal your right wing propaganda elsewhere, bubba.

I mean really. They are talking about axing the A-10 warthog, and using existing fighters (including the F-35) to take up its role in close in ground support of troops. But I have a huge problem with this concept. The A-10 has proven itself time and time again in actual combat that it is more than up to the challenge, carrying a formidable array of weapons, and ruggedness unmatched in any military, including our own. And considering its relative low cost per bang, and more importantly, its survivability and the fact that the pilots absolutely love flying it, why would you replace it with something that has an unproven track record, cannot tolerate being shot at, and costs as much a 10 A-10s to procure and keep in the air? It is decisions like these that put our forces in jeopardy.

And here is the simple answer. The Airforce doesn't like to work for the army. And so that is why they want to get rid of the A-10. It has nothing to do with capability or cost.

The Air Force has been trying to dump the close combat support mission since WWII. They never wanted the A-10 in the first place

 

[orogenicman]

Never seen that story before....LOL Like every year for the last 60 years No, there is no other nation even close to us militarily

Well, I don't know about every year, but certainly in 1981, as we were saying goodbye to the disaster known as the Carter Presidency.

Carter ramped down the military after VietNam ended.
What a travesty

No, that was Ford, with Carter batting clean-up, wasn't it? And there's no escaping the idea that Carter went too far in finishing the job.

Carter approved the funding and development of the smart weapons that helped win Desert Storm. As a naval engineer, he knew what needed to be done.

And yet he axed the B-1B bomber. Raygun brought it back, fortunately, because it has a lot of capability. If you are the enemy and see one of these coming your way, kiss your arse goodbye:

 

[orogenicman]

As is always the case toward the end of Leftist government, the US means to defend itself is once again in jeopardy... .

Such is, of course, the nature of those who advocate for Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... and never less so, than where such subversives are elected to the office of the President of the United States.

From the Article:

"The House Armed Services Committee is warning that it should no longer be assumed that the U.S. military is either the most technologically superior or the most dominant fighting force, an assessment that comes just as the rise of the Islamic State and Russia is posing a real challenge to the United States.

“[W]ith the continued diffusion of advanced technology, U.S. military technological superiority is no longer assumed and the dominance U.S. forces have long enjoyed in the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is no longer assured,” the committee wrote in a report detailing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2016. “Such a security environment demands that the nation’s armed forces are agile, efficient, ready, and lethal.”

The committee said that trend is especially worrying in light of the various national security challenges that have come up in the last year. Those include “the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, growing instability across the Middle East and Africa, and a revanchist Russian Federation.”

The committee said those threats “are a reminder of the continuing need for U.S. military engagement, presence, commitment, and strength to defend U.S. interests, deter would-be aggressors, and reassure allies and partners.”

The NDAA doesn’t fund the military, but it does set policy direction for the military, and authorizes specific spending levels within the Department of Defense. The 2016 NDAA authorizes $515 billion in discretionary spending, and $89.2 billion for “overseas contingency operations.”

The overseas operations account is generally used to fund war operations, but this year, it has become controversial because Republicans are using that account to boost Defense Department funding above the cap on spending that was agreed in 2011.

The Obama administration requested a total of almost $612 billion in total Defense Department funding, and the House NDAA matches that once mandatory spending items are added.

One frustration in Congress has been the Obama administration’s reluctance to send military aid to Ukraine to help that country stave off pro-Russia insurgents, who are still receiving support from Russian forces. The NDAA, however, would call on the U.S. to send this lethal aid to Ukraine. ... .

Perhaps if the Pentagon had spent money on needed items instead of spending nearly 1.5 trillion dollars on one weapons system that we don't need and doesn't work, we'd have a real military. But wait, even with this bloatware in the budget, we actually DO have a real military that actually does know how to fight. So I guess you are going to have to pedal your right wing propaganda elsewhere, bubba.

I mean really. They are talking about axing the A-10 warthog, and using existing fighters (including the F-35) to take up its role in close in ground support of troops. But I have a huge problem with this concept. The A-10 has proven itself time and time again in actual combat that it is more than up to the challenge, carrying a formidable array of weapons, and ruggedness unmatched in any military, including our own. And considering its relative low cost per bang, and more importantly, its survivability and the fact that the pilots absolutely love flying it, why would you replace it with something that has an unproven track record, cannot tolerate being shot at, and costs as much a 10 A-10s to procure and keep in the air? It is decisions like these that put our forces in jeopardy.

And here is the simple answer. The Airforce doesn't like to work for the army. And so that is why they want to get rid of the A-10. It has nothing to do with capability or cost.

The Air Force has been trying to dump the close combat support mission since WWII. They never wanted the A-10 in the first place

Yes I know, but it has more than proven its effectiveness in actual combat. If they don't want them, instead of axing them, they should just give them to the army. The army likes them and needs their capabilities. Close combat support will always be necessary. You cannot build out of this simple fact.

 

[Camp]

As is always the case toward the end of Leftist government, the US means to defend itself is once again in jeopardy... .

Such is, of course, the nature of those who advocate for Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... and never less so, than where such subversives are elected to the office of the President of the United States.

From the Article:

"The House Armed Services Committee is warning that it should no longer be assumed that the U.S. military is either the most technologically superior or the most dominant fighting force, an assessment that comes just as the rise of the Islamic State and Russia is posing a real challenge to the United States.

“[W]ith the continued diffusion of advanced technology, U.S. military technological superiority is no longer assumed and the dominance U.S. forces have long enjoyed in the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is no longer assured,” the committee wrote in a report detailing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2016. “Such a security environment demands that the nation’s armed forces are agile, efficient, ready, and lethal.”

The committee said that trend is especially worrying in light of the various national security challenges that have come up in the last year. Those include “the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, growing instability across the Middle East and Africa, and a revanchist Russian Federation.”

The committee said those threats “are a reminder of the continuing need for U.S. military engagement, presence, commitment, and strength to defend U.S. interests, deter would-be aggressors, and reassure allies and partners.”

The NDAA doesn’t fund the military, but it does set policy direction for the military, and authorizes specific spending levels within the Department of Defense. The 2016 NDAA authorizes $515 billion in discretionary spending, and $89.2 billion for “overseas contingency operations.”

The overseas operations account is generally used to fund war operations, but this year, it has become controversial because Republicans are using that account to boost Defense Department funding above the cap on spending that was agreed in 2011.

The Obama administration requested a total of almost $612 billion in total Defense Department funding, and the House NDAA matches that once mandatory spending items are added.

One frustration in Congress has been the Obama administration’s reluctance to send military aid to Ukraine to help that country stave off pro-Russia insurgents, who are still receiving support from Russian forces. The NDAA, however, would call on the U.S. to send this lethal aid to Ukraine. ... .

Perhaps if the Pentagon had spent money on needed items instead of spending nearly 1.5 trillion dollars on one weapons system that we don't need and doesn't work, we'd have a real military. But wait, even with this bloatware in the budget, we actually DO have a real military that actually does know how to fight. So I guess you are going to have to pedal your right wing propaganda elsewhere, bubba.

Relatively small cuts in DoD spending (10-20 bil/year) , could fund quite easily a huge 10-15 year infrastructure revitalization project that would employ way more people then are lost in DoD cuts.

Again liberal logic blows my mind away, so you want to tear away highly paid Union military workers pay roll and give it to $10 dollar and hour workers?

for temp jobs in construction re building the nations infrastructure?

Weird? Were are you going to get the Union vote from?

So strange

Why would you think infrastructure could be built with ten dollar per hour labor. Why wouldn't you use high paid skilled labor, perhaps union labor in many cases? Rebuilding and repairing infrastructure would require skilled professionals and tradesmen of every variety.

It's still temp jobs, once you built it..well its just built ..

Military jobs never finished

Not that hard to explain, always new work

What do you think happens when a military project is finished? The only way those jobs remain are if the MIC creates jobs for creating temporary projects that quickly become obsolete and are supported by never ending cost overruns. Do we still have those surplus Abram tanks at 4.3 million per tank congress pushed on the Pentagon when they said they didn't want them and didn't want to spend funds on maintaining them?
Now, about that dopey statement about infrastructure and "once you built it...well its just built..". You used the Hoover Dam as an example. How many people do you suppose the Hoover Dam creates employment for today? Could Las Vega exist without the Hoover Dam? What other areas and industries exist because of the Hoover Dam? Can you think of a lot of military projects that were created 80 years ago and are still providing jobs?

 

[orogenicman]

As is always the case toward the end of Leftist government, the US means to defend itself is once again in jeopardy... .

Such is, of course, the nature of those who advocate for Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... and never less so, than where such subversives are elected to the office of the President of the United States.

From the Article:

"The House Armed Services Committee is warning that it should no longer be assumed that the U.S. military is either the most technologically superior or the most dominant fighting force, an assessment that comes just as the rise of the Islamic State and Russia is posing a real challenge to the United States.

“[W]ith the continued diffusion of advanced technology, U.S. military technological superiority is no longer assumed and the dominance U.S. forces have long enjoyed in the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is no longer assured,” the committee wrote in a report detailing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2016. “Such a security environment demands that the nation’s armed forces are agile, efficient, ready, and lethal.”

The committee said that trend is especially worrying in light of the various national security challenges that have come up in the last year. Those include “the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, growing instability across the Middle East and Africa, and a revanchist Russian Federation.”

The committee said those threats “are a reminder of the continuing need for U.S. military engagement, presence, commitment, and strength to defend U.S. interests, deter would-be aggressors, and reassure allies and partners.”

The NDAA doesn’t fund the military, but it does set policy direction for the military, and authorizes specific spending levels within the Department of Defense. The 2016 NDAA authorizes $515 billion in discretionary spending, and $89.2 billion for “overseas contingency operations.”

The overseas operations account is generally used to fund war operations, but this year, it has become controversial because Republicans are using that account to boost Defense Department funding above the cap on spending that was agreed in 2011.

The Obama administration requested a total of almost $612 billion in total Defense Department funding, and the House NDAA matches that once mandatory spending items are added.

One frustration in Congress has been the Obama administration’s reluctance to send military aid to Ukraine to help that country stave off pro-Russia insurgents, who are still receiving support from Russian forces. The NDAA, however, would call on the U.S. to send this lethal aid to Ukraine. ... .

Perhaps if the Pentagon had spent money on needed items instead of spending nearly 1.5 trillion dollars on one weapons system that we don't need and doesn't work, we'd have a real military. But wait, even with this bloatware in the budget, we actually DO have a real military that actually does know how to fight. So I guess you are going to have to pedal your right wing propaganda elsewhere, bubba.

Relatively small cuts in DoD spending (10-20 bil/year) , could fund quite easily a huge 10-15 year infrastructure revitalization project that would employ way more people then are lost in DoD cuts.

Again liberal logic blows my mind away, so you want to tear away highly paid Union military workers pay roll and give it to $10 dollar and hour workers?

for temp jobs in construction re building the nations infrastructure?

Weird? Were are you going to get the Union vote from?

So strange

Why would you think infrastructure could be built with ten dollar per hour labor. Why wouldn't you use high paid skilled labor, perhaps union labor in many cases? Rebuilding and repairing infrastructure would require skilled professionals and tradesmen of every variety.

It's still temp jobs, once you built it..well its just built ..

Military jobs never finished

Not that hard to explain, always new work

What do you think happens when a military project is finished? The only way those jobs remain are if the MIC creates jobs for creating temporary projects that quickly become obsolete and are supported by never ending cost overruns. Do we still have those surplus Abram tanks at 4.3 million per tank congress pushed on the Pentagon when they said they didn't want them and didn't want to spend funds on maintaining them?
Now, about that dopey statement about infrastructure and "once you built it...well its just built..". You used the Hoover Dam as an example. How many people do you suppose the Hoover Dam creates employment for today? Could Las Vega exist without the Hoover Dam? What other areas and industries exist because of the Hoover Dam? Can you think of a lot of military projects that were created 80 years ago and are still providing jobs?

The M1 Abrams is still in service. And your claim that they didn't want them, I call bullshit. They certainly did want that tank, and still does. Nothing else in our arsenal can compare.

 

[Kondor3]

Never seen that story before....LOL Like every year for the last 60 years No, there is no other nation even close to us militarily

Well, I don't know about every year, but certainly in 1981, as we were saying goodbye to the disaster known as the Carter Presidency.

Carter ramped down the military after VietNam ended.
What a travesty

No, that was Ford, with Carter batting clean-up, wasn't it? And there's no escaping the idea that Carter went too far in finishing the job.

No. It was not Ford at all. The 1975 budget for the US military was passed in 1974 and we completely pulled out of Saigon in May 1975. The 1976 military budget, passed in 1975, barely budged from it's former funding levels because Ford didn't want to appear weak on the military in an election year. Carter did a moderate scale-down, on the advice of his top-brass.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I happily concede the point with respect to budgetary outlay.

However, I think there is a very great deal of wiggle-room there with respect to Training and Upkeep and General Readiness.

 

[Kondor3]

Never seen that story before....LOL Like every year for the last 60 years No, there is no other nation even close to us militarily

Well, I don't know about every year, but certainly in 1981, as we were saying goodbye to the disaster known as the Carter Presidency.

Carter ramped down the military after VietNam ended.
What a travesty

No, that was Ford, with Carter batting clean-up, wasn't it? And there's no escaping the idea that Carter went too far in finishing the job.

Carter approved the funding and development of the smart weapons that helped win Desert Storm. As a naval engineer, he knew what needed to be done.

Conceded.

As an engineer, he had a good idea of the value of various next-gen weapons.

Trouble is, the military state-of-readiness and competency had fallen dramatically during his watch, and his seeming timidity in utilizing them as needed and subsequent impact upon morale and credibility did great damage to our effectiveness under his stewardship.

The overall effect was a perceived leadership failure.

And, of course, if perceptions run deep enough and broad enough, Perception becomes Reality.

 

[Kondor3]

...The Air Force has been trying to dump the close combat support mission since WWII. They never wanted the A-10 in the first place

If true, then perhaps they need to stick to routinely-safer strategic and saturation missions, and leave the gut-level stuff to Army Aviation and Naval Aviation.

Perhaps it's time to design and roll-out an A-10 upgrade of new manufacture and ramp-up the Army Aviation organization to re-shoulder the Ground Support Aviation task.

Ditto for Naval (Marine?) Aviation.

That way, the Air Force folk can stay up above the 30-40,000 -foot level, out of range of most of the ground fire.

Not that that's gonna do anything for their image, in an inter-service collaboration context.

 

[Camp]

As is always the case toward the end of Leftist government, the US means to defend itself is once again in jeopardy... .

Such is, of course, the nature of those who advocate for Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... and never less so, than where such subversives are elected to the office of the President of the United States.

From the Article:

"The House Armed Services Committee is warning that it should no longer be assumed that the U.S. military is either the most technologically superior or the most dominant fighting force, an assessment that comes just as the rise of the Islamic State and Russia is posing a real challenge to the United States.

“[W]ith the continued diffusion of advanced technology, U.S. military technological superiority is no longer assumed and the dominance U.S. forces have long enjoyed in the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is no longer assured,” the committee wrote in a report detailing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2016. “Such a security environment demands that the nation’s armed forces are agile, efficient, ready, and lethal.”

The committee said that trend is especially worrying in light of the various national security challenges that have come up in the last year. Those include “the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, growing instability across the Middle East and Africa, and a revanchist Russian Federation.”

The committee said those threats “are a reminder of the continuing need for U.S. military engagement, presence, commitment, and strength to defend U.S. interests, deter would-be aggressors, and reassure allies and partners.”

The NDAA doesn’t fund the military, but it does set policy direction for the military, and authorizes specific spending levels within the Department of Defense. The 2016 NDAA authorizes $515 billion in discretionary spending, and $89.2 billion for “overseas contingency operations.”

The overseas operations account is generally used to fund war operations, but this year, it has become controversial because Republicans are using that account to boost Defense Department funding above the cap on spending that was agreed in 2011.

The Obama administration requested a total of almost $612 billion in total Defense Department funding, and the House NDAA matches that once mandatory spending items are added.

One frustration in Congress has been the Obama administration’s reluctance to send military aid to Ukraine to help that country stave off pro-Russia insurgents, who are still receiving support from Russian forces. The NDAA, however, would call on the U.S. to send this lethal aid to Ukraine. ... .

Perhaps if the Pentagon had spent money on needed items instead of spending nearly 1.5 trillion dollars on one weapons system that we don't need and doesn't work, we'd have a real military. But wait, even with this bloatware in the budget, we actually DO have a real military that actually does know how to fight. So I guess you are going to have to pedal your right wing propaganda elsewhere, bubba.

Relatively small cuts in DoD spending (10-20 bil/year) , could fund quite easily a huge 10-15 year infrastructure revitalization project that would employ way more people then are lost in DoD cuts.

Again liberal logic blows my mind away, so you want to tear away highly paid Union military workers pay roll and give it to $10 dollar and hour workers?

for temp jobs in construction re building the nations infrastructure?

Weird? Were are you going to get the Union vote from?

So strange

Why would you think infrastructure could be built with ten dollar per hour labor. Why wouldn't you use high paid skilled labor, perhaps union labor in many cases? Rebuilding and repairing infrastructure would require skilled professionals and tradesmen of every variety.

It's still temp jobs, once you built it..well its just built ..

Military jobs never finished

Not that hard to explain, always new work

What do you think happens when a military project is finished? The only way those jobs remain are if the MIC creates jobs for creating temporary projects that quickly become obsolete and are supported by never ending cost overruns. Do we still have those surplus Abram tanks at 4.3 million per tank congress pushed on the Pentagon when they said they didn't want them and didn't want to spend funds on maintaining them?
Now, about that dopey statement about infrastructure and "once you built it...well its just built..". You used the Hoover Dam as an example. How many people do you suppose the Hoover Dam creates employment for today? Could Las Vega exist without the Hoover Dam? What other areas and industries exist because of the Hoover Dam? Can you think of a lot of military projects that were created 80 years ago and are still providing jobs?

The M1 Abrams is still in service. And your claim that they didn't want them, I call bullshit. They certainly did want that tank, and still does. Nothing else in our arsenal can compare.

I was talking about the latest production order. Congress pushed additional Abrams onto the Army when the Army didn't need or want them. Interestingly, with the introduction of the new Russian tank, the T14 Armata, the Abrams will have to be replaced of drastically updated.

businessinsider.com/congress-forcing-the-army-to-make-tanks-2012-10

foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/

 

[rightwinger]

As is always the case toward the end of Leftist government, the US means to defend itself is once again in jeopardy... .

Such is, of course, the nature of those who advocate for Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... and never less so, than where such subversives are elected to the office of the President of the United States.

From the Article:

"The House Armed Services Committee is warning that it should no longer be assumed that the U.S. military is either the most technologically superior or the most dominant fighting force, an assessment that comes just as the rise of the Islamic State and Russia is posing a real challenge to the United States.

“[W]ith the continued diffusion of advanced technology, U.S. military technological superiority is no longer assumed and the dominance U.S. forces have long enjoyed in the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is no longer assured,” the committee wrote in a report detailing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2016. “Such a security environment demands that the nation’s armed forces are agile, efficient, ready, and lethal.”

The committee said that trend is especially worrying in light of the various national security challenges that have come up in the last year. Those include “the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, growing instability across the Middle East and Africa, and a revanchist Russian Federation.”

The committee said those threats “are a reminder of the continuing need for U.S. military engagement, presence, commitment, and strength to defend U.S. interests, deter would-be aggressors, and reassure allies and partners.”

The NDAA doesn’t fund the military, but it does set policy direction for the military, and authorizes specific spending levels within the Department of Defense. The 2016 NDAA authorizes $515 billion in discretionary spending, and $89.2 billion for “overseas contingency operations.”

The overseas operations account is generally used to fund war operations, but this year, it has become controversial because Republicans are using that account to boost Defense Department funding above the cap on spending that was agreed in 2011.

The Obama administration requested a total of almost $612 billion in total Defense Department funding, and the House NDAA matches that once mandatory spending items are added.

One frustration in Congress has been the Obama administration’s reluctance to send military aid to Ukraine to help that country stave off pro-Russia insurgents, who are still receiving support from Russian forces. The NDAA, however, would call on the U.S. to send this lethal aid to Ukraine. ... .

Perhaps if the Pentagon had spent money on needed items instead of spending nearly 1.5 trillion dollars on one weapons system that we don't need and doesn't work, we'd have a real military. But wait, even with this bloatware in the budget, we actually DO have a real military that actually does know how to fight. So I guess you are going to have to pedal your right wing propaganda elsewhere, bubba.

I mean really. They are talking about axing the A-10 warthog, and using existing fighters (including the F-35) to take up its role in close in ground support of troops. But I have a huge problem with this concept. The A-10 has proven itself time and time again in actual combat that it is more than up to the challenge, carrying a formidable array of weapons, and ruggedness unmatched in any military, including our own. And considering its relative low cost per bang, and more importantly, its survivability and the fact that the pilots absolutely love flying it, why would you replace it with something that has an unproven track record, cannot tolerate being shot at, and costs as much a 10 A-10s to procure and keep in the air? It is decisions like these that put our forces in jeopardy.

And here is the simple answer. The Airforce doesn't like to work for the army. And so that is why they want to get rid of the A-10. It has nothing to do with capability or cost.

The Air Force has been trying to dump the close combat support mission since WWII. They never wanted the A-10 in the first place

Yes I know, but it has more than proven its effectiveness in actual combat. If they don't want them, instead of axing them, they should just give them to the army. The army likes them and needs their capabilities. Close combat support will always be necessary. You cannot build out of this simple fact.

They have no other capability to get in that close, reign down such destruction and protect the pilot
Helicopters can't do it and modified fighters can't do it

 

[orogenicman]

As is always the case toward the end of Leftist government, the US means to defend itself is once again in jeopardy... .

Such is, of course, the nature of those who advocate for Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... and never less so, than where such subversives are elected to the office of the President of the United States.

From the Article:

"The House Armed Services Committee is warning that it should no longer be assumed that the U.S. military is either the most technologically superior or the most dominant fighting force, an assessment that comes just as the rise of the Islamic State and Russia is posing a real challenge to the United States.

“[W]ith the continued diffusion of advanced technology, U.S. military technological superiority is no longer assumed and the dominance U.S. forces have long enjoyed in the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is no longer assured,” the committee wrote in a report detailing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2016. “Such a security environment demands that the nation’s armed forces are agile, efficient, ready, and lethal.”

The committee said that trend is especially worrying in light of the various national security challenges that have come up in the last year. Those include “the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, growing instability across the Middle East and Africa, and a revanchist Russian Federation.”

The committee said those threats “are a reminder of the continuing need for U.S. military engagement, presence, commitment, and strength to defend U.S. interests, deter would-be aggressors, and reassure allies and partners.”

The NDAA doesn’t fund the military, but it does set policy direction for the military, and authorizes specific spending levels within the Department of Defense. The 2016 NDAA authorizes $515 billion in discretionary spending, and $89.2 billion for “overseas contingency operations.”

The overseas operations account is generally used to fund war operations, but this year, it has become controversial because Republicans are using that account to boost Defense Department funding above the cap on spending that was agreed in 2011.

The Obama administration requested a total of almost $612 billion in total Defense Department funding, and the House NDAA matches that once mandatory spending items are added.

One frustration in Congress has been the Obama administration’s reluctance to send military aid to Ukraine to help that country stave off pro-Russia insurgents, who are still receiving support from Russian forces. The NDAA, however, would call on the U.S. to send this lethal aid to Ukraine. ... .

Perhaps if the Pentagon had spent money on needed items instead of spending nearly 1.5 trillion dollars on one weapons system that we don't need and doesn't work, we'd have a real military. But wait, even with this bloatware in the budget, we actually DO have a real military that actually does know how to fight. So I guess you are going to have to pedal your right wing propaganda elsewhere, bubba.

Again liberal logic blows my mind away, so you want to tear away highly paid Union military workers pay roll and give it to $10 dollar and hour workers?

for temp jobs in construction re building the nations infrastructure?

Weird? Were are you going to get the Union vote from?

So strange

Why would you think infrastructure could be built with ten dollar per hour labor. Why wouldn't you use high paid skilled labor, perhaps union labor in many cases? Rebuilding and repairing infrastructure would require skilled professionals and tradesmen of every variety.

It's still temp jobs, once you built it..well its just built ..

Military jobs never finished

Not that hard to explain, always new work

What do you think happens when a military project is finished? The only way those jobs remain are if the MIC creates jobs for creating temporary projects that quickly become obsolete and are supported by never ending cost overruns. Do we still have those surplus Abram tanks at 4.3 million per tank congress pushed on the Pentagon when they said they didn't want them and didn't want to spend funds on maintaining them?
Now, about that dopey statement about infrastructure and "once you built it...well its just built..". You used the Hoover Dam as an example. How many people do you suppose the Hoover Dam creates employment for today? Could Las Vega exist without the Hoover Dam? What other areas and industries exist because of the Hoover Dam? Can you think of a lot of military projects that were created 80 years ago and are still providing jobs?

The M1 Abrams is still in service. And your claim that they didn't want them, I call bullshit. They certainly did want that tank, and still does. Nothing else in our arsenal can compare.

I was talking about the latest production order. Congress pushed additional Abrams onto the Army when the Army didn't need or want them. Interestingly, with the introduction of the new Russian tank, the T14 Armata, the Abrams will have to be replaced of drastically updated.

businessinsider.com/congress-forcing-the-army-to-make-tanks-2012-10

foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/

Not if they keep the A-10, and upgrade and expand production.

 

[orogenicman]

As is always the case toward the end of Leftist government, the US means to defend itself is once again in jeopardy... .

Such is, of course, the nature of those who advocate for Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... and never less so, than where such subversives are elected to the office of the President of the United States.

From the Article:

"The House Armed Services Committee is warning that it should no longer be assumed that the U.S. military is either the most technologically superior or the most dominant fighting force, an assessment that comes just as the rise of the Islamic State and Russia is posing a real challenge to the United States.

“[W]ith the continued diffusion of advanced technology, U.S. military technological superiority is no longer assumed and the dominance U.S. forces have long enjoyed in the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is no longer assured,” the committee wrote in a report detailing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2016. “Such a security environment demands that the nation’s armed forces are agile, efficient, ready, and lethal.”

The committee said that trend is especially worrying in light of the various national security challenges that have come up in the last year. Those include “the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, growing instability across the Middle East and Africa, and a revanchist Russian Federation.”

The committee said those threats “are a reminder of the continuing need for U.S. military engagement, presence, commitment, and strength to defend U.S. interests, deter would-be aggressors, and reassure allies and partners.”

The NDAA doesn’t fund the military, but it does set policy direction for the military, and authorizes specific spending levels within the Department of Defense. The 2016 NDAA authorizes $515 billion in discretionary spending, and $89.2 billion for “overseas contingency operations.”

The overseas operations account is generally used to fund war operations, but this year, it has become controversial because Republicans are using that account to boost Defense Department funding above the cap on spending that was agreed in 2011.

The Obama administration requested a total of almost $612 billion in total Defense Department funding, and the House NDAA matches that once mandatory spending items are added.

One frustration in Congress has been the Obama administration’s reluctance to send military aid to Ukraine to help that country stave off pro-Russia insurgents, who are still receiving support from Russian forces. The NDAA, however, would call on the U.S. to send this lethal aid to Ukraine. ... .

Perhaps if the Pentagon had spent money on needed items instead of spending nearly 1.5 trillion dollars on one weapons system that we don't need and doesn't work, we'd have a real military. But wait, even with this bloatware in the budget, we actually DO have a real military that actually does know how to fight. So I guess you are going to have to pedal your right wing propaganda elsewhere, bubba.

I mean really. They are talking about axing the A-10 warthog, and using existing fighters (including the F-35) to take up its role in close in ground support of troops. But I have a huge problem with this concept. The A-10 has proven itself time and time again in actual combat that it is more than up to the challenge, carrying a formidable array of weapons, and ruggedness unmatched in any military, including our own. And considering its relative low cost per bang, and more importantly, its survivability and the fact that the pilots absolutely love flying it, why would you replace it with something that has an unproven track record, cannot tolerate being shot at, and costs as much a 10 A-10s to procure and keep in the air? It is decisions like these that put our forces in jeopardy.

And here is the simple answer. The Airforce doesn't like to work for the army. And so that is why they want to get rid of the A-10. It has nothing to do with capability or cost.

The Air Force has been trying to dump the close combat support mission since WWII. They never wanted the A-10 in the first place

Yes I know, but it has more than proven its effectiveness in actual combat. If they don't want them, instead of axing them, they should just give them to the army. The army likes them and needs their capabilities. Close combat support will always be necessary. You cannot build out of this simple fact.

They have no other capability to get in that close, reign down such destruction and protect the pilot
Helicopters can't do it and modified fighters can't do it

Fighters can do it to a limited extent, but considering the cost of those planes, and the fact that they can't take the punishment an A-10 can, why risk it.? The A-10 was designed specifically for close combat support, and for survivability. Like you said, it is the only plane with its combination of capabilities. They need to keep it up and running, IMHO. During the two Iraq wars, the A-10 conducted thousands of sorties, and lost only two pilots, and six planes. One of the planes lost ten feet of one wing, and half of its tail, and still made it back to base. Considering the number of sorties and the close combat role they played, that is an outstanding statistic.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The US spends 47 cents of every defense dollar on earth

I guess that is not enough

The warmonger right believes that by trying to bankrupt us with military spending, they can along the way destroy the liberal agenda to take care of Americans here at home.

Yes... 500 billion spent to insure US military dominance... is bankrupting the US, but the 2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO SUSTAIN PEOPLE NO LONGER IN THE U.S. WORKFORCE IS NOT.

Relativism kills!

 

[orogenicman]

The US spends 47 cents of every defense dollar on earth

I guess that is not enough

The warmonger right believes that by trying to bankrupt us with military spending, they can along the way destroy the liberal agenda to take care of Americans here at home.

Yes... 500 billion spent to insure US military dominance... is bankrupting the US, but the 2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO SUSTAIN PEOPLE NO LONGER IN THE U.S. WORKFORCE IS NOT.

Relativism kills!

Imagine if those people didn't get any assistance at all. Where would we be then?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The US spends 47 cents of every defense dollar on earth

I guess that is not enough

The warmonger right believes that by trying to bankrupt us with military spending, they can along the way destroy the liberal agenda to take care of Americans here at home.

Yes... 500 billion spent to insure US military dominance... is bankrupting the US, but the 2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO SUSTAIN PEOPLE NO LONGER IN THE U.S. WORKFORCE IS NOT.

Relativism kills!

Imagine if those people didn't get any assistance at all. Where would we be then?

Yes... Imagine that.

Then imagine the TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WAS STOLEN FROM THOSE PEOPLE by a thoroughly corrupt system of government. And imagine the frustration of Bernie Maydoff as he was separated from the exquisite opulence for committing an imperceptible fraction of the same exact thing that the government that charged and convicted him of that same crime they have been committing for 70+ years.

Now the reasoning that causes this criminalty is the same that causes all criminality ... All evil. It's the same thing that causes all forms of sociopathy. And that is Relativism. The mental disorder that causes socialism.

Our founders were privileged to live during the birth of our exceptional nation... We're privileged to live at its demise.

 

[orogenicman]

The US spends 47 cents of every defense dollar on earth

I guess that is not enough

The warmonger right believes that by trying to bankrupt us with military spending, they can along the way destroy the liberal agenda to take care of Americans here at home.

Yes... 500 billion spent to insure US military dominance... is bankrupting the US, but the 2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO SUSTAIN PEOPLE NO LONGER IN THE U.S. WORKFORCE IS NOT.

Relativism kills!

Imagine if those people didn't get any assistance at all. Where would we be then?

Yes... Imagine that.

Then imagine the TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WAS STOLEN FROM THOSE PEOPLE by a thoroughly corrupt system of government. And imagine the frustration of Bernie Maydoff as he was separated from the exquisite opulence for committing an imperceptible fraction of the same exact thing that the government that charged and convicted him of that same crime they have been committing for 70+ years.

Now the reasoning that causes this criminalty is the same that causes all criminality ... All evil. It's the same thing that causes all forms of sociopathy. And that is Relativism. The mental disorder that causes socialism.

Our founders were privileged to live during the birth of our exceptional nation... We're privileged to live at its demise.

And imagine millions of poor people living,defecating, and dying right on your doorstep.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The US spends 47 cents of every defense dollar on earth

I guess that is not enough

The warmonger right believes that by trying to bankrupt us with military spending, they can along the way destroy the liberal agenda to take care of Americans here at home.

Yes... 500 billion spent to insure US military dominance... is bankrupting the US, but the 2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO SUSTAIN PEOPLE NO LONGER IN THE U.S. WORKFORCE IS NOT.

Relativism kills!

Imagine if those people didn't get any assistance at all. Where would we be then?

Yes... Imagine that.

Then imagine the TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WAS STOLEN FROM THOSE PEOPLE by a thoroughly corrupt system of government. And imagine the frustration of Bernie Maydoff as he was separated from the exquisite opulence for committing an imperceptible fraction of the same exact thing that the government that charged and convicted him of that same crime they have been committing for 70+ years.

Now the reasoning that causes this criminalty is the same that causes all criminality ... All evil. It's the same thing that causes all forms of sociopathy. And that is Relativism. The mental disorder that causes socialism.

Our founders were privileged to live during the birth of our exceptional nation... We're privileged to live at its demise.

And imagine millions of poor people living,defecating, and dying right on your doorstep.

Just wait a couple of years at the most and you won't have to imagine it.

 

[orogenicman]

The warmonger right believes that by trying to bankrupt us with military spending, they can along the way destroy the liberal agenda to take care of Americans here at home.

Yes... 500 billion spent to insure US military dominance... is bankrupting the US, but the 2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO SUSTAIN PEOPLE NO LONGER IN THE U.S. WORKFORCE IS NOT.

Relativism kills!

Imagine if those people didn't get any assistance at all. Where would we be then?

Yes... Imagine that.

Then imagine the TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WAS STOLEN FROM THOSE PEOPLE by a thoroughly corrupt system of government. And imagine the frustration of Bernie Maydoff as he was separated from the exquisite opulence for committing an imperceptible fraction of the same exact thing that the government that charged and convicted him of that same crime they have been committing for 70+ years.

Now the reasoning that causes this criminalty is the same that causes all criminality ... All evil. It's the same thing that causes all forms of sociopathy. And that is Relativism. The mental disorder that causes socialism.

Our founders were privileged to live during the birth of our exceptional nation... We're privileged to live at its demise.

And imagine millions of poor people living,defecating, and dying right on your doorstep.

Just wait a couple of years at the most and you won't have to imagine it.

If people like you ever gain power, I don't doubt that that is true.