Sequestration hangs over election results

Sequestration hangs over election results

Despite the $6 billion spent on this year’s election, not much changed. President Obama stayed in office. The House remained in Republican control and the Democrats retained the Senate.

And one deadline remained in place. Congress has until Jan. 2 to reach a deficit reduction agreement to avoid massive sequestration cuts that spread across the entire federal government to include a 10 percent cut of the Pentagon’s budget.

With 55 days left before the deadline, very few defense or budget analysts expect Congress and the president to reach the wide ranging deal needed to lift sequestration. Most expect Congress to either delay sequestration cuts, or allow sequestration to occur and then negotiate an agreement to lessen the cuts laid out in the Budget Control Act.

Sequestration stipulates $500 billion in cuts over the next decade for the Defense Department. These would come on top of the $487 billion cut already laid out under the defense strategy proposed by the Obama administration and delayed by Congress.

Most troubling to defense leaders about sequestration is the meat axe approach in which the law mandates a 10 percent cut across defense programs. Defense Department officials do have a bit of wiggle room to move some money around the budget to protect a few high priority programs, but very little.

Frank Kendall, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, said Monday the Pentagon has still done very little planning to prepare for sequestration since it’s such a basic cut to planned defense spending.

For months, lawmakers have avoided questions about negotiations toward eliminating sequestration saying Congress will have to wait until the election before any progress could be expected to be made. With the election complete, Congress will have only a few weeks in a lame duck session to hash out a deal.

Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, remains optimistic that Congress can make enough progress on a deficit reduction plan to achieve a partial sequester, rather than the $500 billion cut that defense coffers would have to sustain.

She pointed to the solution suggested earlier this year by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin who offered a $100 billion cut over the next decade rather than the $500 billion one.

“That idea has gained traction,” she said.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said Thursday the Senate is working on a deal that includes both spending cuts and new revenue streams that already has 70 votes. However, Warner didn’t say if Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner has seen it and supports it.

What Congress must overcome are the positions dug in by both sides of the aisle. Republicans have made it clear they will not accept a deal that applies new taxes. Conversely, Democrats have said they will not sign off on a deal that depends only on spending cuts.

Even though President Obama won re-election and earned a significant victory in the electoral college, many did not see it as a mandate that could sway Republicans at the negotiating table. Keeping the job will make it easier for the president rather than losing and having his departure hang over the lame duck session.

While there is nearly unanimous support to avoid the across the board spending cuts to the Defense Department, the Pentagon will only play a small role in these negotiations, said Nora Bensahel, a foreign policy expert and military strategist for the Center for a New American Security.

“The total dollars at stake are more than nine times larger than the defense sequestration cuts,” according to a CNAS report.

If a deal is not agreed to and the government goes over the fiscal cliff, the Bush era tax cuts expire, the Alternative Minimum Tax patch expires, and the temporary pay roll tax reduction expires. The potential disappearance of these tax cuts has gotten more attention on Capitol Hill than the reductions in defense spending.

However, Bensahel argues that the disappearance of these tax benefits could make it easier for Democrats and Republicans to negotiate a deal if the U.S. does go over the fiscal cliff. Many of the spending cuts don’t go into effect until months after the Jan. 2 deadline meaning lawmakers will have that time to potentially hash out the “grand bargain” they’ve discussed in the past.

When those tax benefits go away, taxes will automatically go up creating the revenue the Democrats have sought, but it will not be because Republicans caved. The Republicans could then negotiate the spending cuts they’ve sought while also stitching in tax cuts to the increased rate, Bensahel suggested.

In the end, Eaglen said the results of Tuesday’s presidential election probably didn’t have too much of an effect on the chances of reaching the “grand bargain” to cut down the U.S. deficit ahead of the Jan. 2 deadline.

“Either one of them would have needed time to build it and neither one would have had it in a lame duck session,” Eaglen said.

Join the Conversation

Not mentioned much is the waste on:
–An excess of flag ranks and SES
–Bad weapons system spending on duds like LCS, F-35, DDX, and $13B carriers-Flattop amphibs with no well deck.
–Any flag rank with brains could make $100B per year less work. But I guess not the corrupt ones in charge that are looking for revolving door jobs post-retirement. (Hint, look at the history–such as Stryker as one example)
–And of course there are the politicians who depend on the flow of industry cash.
–The shortage is real military leadership and not cash.

Other wise Obama gets his meat axe to the navy and Air Force. Id say congress only has 3 weeks of session because of the Thanksgiving and Christmas and New year holidays to make a deal that not going to happen that fast. Overall its Americas stupid youth who voted the Senate Democrats in who are at fault. They mad it not 4 more years of Obama its 4 more years of gridlock and cuts not just to useless army projects BUT everything for 4 years.

Might as well sit back boys and watch the government train fly off the fiscal cliff.

The F-35B and F-35C aren’t going to make it for sure now. The F-35A is in a fight for survival.

Boeing is probably polishing off its Super Hornet production line and buffering the Silent Eagle to make it look nice and shiny as we speak.

I hate to break it to you, but those shiny mock-ups for the improved Super Hornet and Silent Eagle are just that, mock-ups. They are not funded by any customer or the US government. To get the same level of sensor fusion would require a lot of work and neither are VLO designs.

With the F-22’s fate sealed, the F-35A is the only option for the USAF. The F-35B has been the USMC’s only hope of a STOVL aircraft for some time now, and as I’ve said before a combination of F-35Cs and F/A-18E/Fs for the Navy is far more capable than just F/A-18s. This administration isn’t going to be funding serious work on F/A-XX or a new fighter.

Agreed about the officers and their lack of leadership or spine when dealing with Congress.

The LCS is a total mess but the F-35 has essentially become the only way forward not that the F-22 is at an end. You’re deluding yourself if you think this administration will fund one or more new fighters in the F-35’s place. And we can’t afford waiting another 15 years.

The DDG-1000 has already been cut down to three ships, beyond that there is a real lack of a plan for future destroyers or cruisers. The CVN-78 is largely based off the Nimitz class design and isn’t a radically new design or anything like that. Blame the costs on changes to schedule, the economy, and the poor state of our ship-building capabilities. I don’t think that feature of the new LHAs is a good choice either, but it’s not like we have a new amtrack to go with them.

The Stryker is a good vehicle if you look at it in the sense of what it was designed for. We may have gone a bit overboard with the number of Stryker brigades however.

The amount of cash spent on actual procurement and R&D is pretty small compared to where the rest of it goes. Stop blaming industry for all of these problems and look at the lack of military and CIVILIAN leadership.

You didn’t break anything to me. Your post is full of half truths. Many of the systems on both the Super Hornet Block III and the Silent Eagle have been tested and they are continuing to be tested. The conformal weapons bays for the Silent Eagle have already fired AMRAAM missiles. The glass ****pit for the Super Hornet is almost already completed and the Navy has made the Advanced Mission Computer type 4, which is basically geared toward providing improved imaging for a new ****pit display. The Navy is quietly making a move to buy the Super Hornet upgrades. Whoever provides the funding is irrelevant in light of the fact that the upgrades are easy to make.

The effectiveness of STOVL fighters has been under question for some time. We don’t really need them and their STOVL capability has never provided a significant difference in any conflict that the US armed forces has participated in: http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​j​h​-​Y​i​Y​P​k​T​C​8​&​a​m​p​;fe

I thought we went over this already, but let’s do it again for the sake of making things clear. A mixed force of F-35Cs and F/A-18E/F’s is not only much more expensive to operate and maintain, but not nearly as effective as a force 3x its size and made up purely of Super Hornets with advanced anti-radar ordinance.

The U.S. Navy could now afford to replace every Legacy Hornet in inventory with a Super Hornet Block II, add an extra squadron of Block IIs to all 11 carrier air wings, add an 11th Carrier Air Wing, upgrade a good portion of these Super Hornets with a glass ****pit display, IRST, conformal fuel tanks, and still save money by sticking with Super Hornets and choosing not to buy the Joint Strike Fighter. The Super Hornet with the upgrades is better than the F-35C in all general performance levels with the exception of stealth. However, the upgraded Super Hornet has a significant increase in stealth with the use of a stealthy-shaped enclosed weapons pod and that significant increase is enough to get the job done. The F-35C isn’t worth it and we don’t need it all.

The obvious solution is to immediately stop funding Social Security and Medicare, followed by eliminating WIC, food stamp programs and Big Bird.

We need 600 ship Navy and 5,000 F-35A’s, new SSBN’s, a new class of cruiser, a TLAM replacement and a new family of hypersonic delivery vehicles with nuclear weapons.

It’ll be like 1984 (or the Soviet Union) where all industrial output is geared towards weapons. Hooray, weapons.

There is a flying F-15SE. Not a new build, but it has everything the package is offering besides canted tails, which are not even being supported anymore. Saw it flying today actually! I’m not saying the USAF is going to be interested.. I’m just saying the “mockup” is Boeing’s corporate owned Eagle and it’s flyable with every upgrade installed.

No doubt the Marines will be getting the ‘B’ and the USAF ‘A’, but I agree with BlackOwl that the F-35C is in risk. The Navy is leaning away from having stealth, and that’s no secret. I would not be surprised at the least if it got canned and they went for the block III Super Hornet.

The United States have been so powerful for so long that we forget how challenging it is to maintain that power in the world. Of course, there are always those who think that there are no threats in the world, and that we should roll back US military force. All of the other stuff (Social Security, Medicare, WIC, Food Stamps, etc..) become moot, if we allow ourselves to atropy to the point that our strength and resolve are tested in a big way. We’re not automatically the strongest nation in the world. We have to work at it, and not take it for granted.

Have we? Ten years post-Soviet isn’t much in the grand scheme of things.

Be interesting to see if anyone is really going to take SS, Medicare and welfare cuts plus the tax hikes to build a ginormous military.

Yea. We should leave the DoD on current glide path and continue to give everyone food stamps, free cell phones, welfare without end, and anything else their heart desires. We should definitely raise taxes, because everyone needs more free stuff from the government. Who needs to incentivise productivity by allowing achievers to keep the product of their own labors. Wanting to keep what you want is just greedy! Confiscating it so that the Government can give it away, THAT’s the way to go!

Being a superpower is over-rated anyway. Someone else will step up and keep the world safe.

John Galt, save us!

Black Owl suggestion to replace F-35 with upgraded F-18 in 3…2…1…

The F-35 isn’t a suitable replacement for F-22 capability. Even according to the JSF JORD.

The Stryker is an over-priced– over-weight death-trap for anything except very permissive terrain and good road availability. That weight problem has hurt it in outrageous claims of speed, (sorry there is a significant speed limit with it)… range — not even close to the requirement— and wear. In the end it was an answer to a non-existent problem where if you didn’t need Bradley capability an evolved M-113 would do for less cash, less O-and-S costs, more-survivability, better deployability, more tactical options for the on-scene commander. The Stryker is both a good case for RICO-statute and a failure. Thus endith the lesson… for now.

There is no tactical benefit for STOVL except as a marketing gimmick for the United States Marketing Corps.

Since the F-35 isn’t survivable like an F-22, and it is too expensive to own and operate for threat environs better handed by legacy, well then, the “requirement” for it is nothing more than a sham. Where both the Super and F-35C can’t take on emerging threats:

–outstanding safety record in carrier ops (low speed handling, able to trap with one engine off)
–two aircrew option (like it or not, a Navy need) when the Navy was asked what they wanted in a JSF years ago it was… 2 aircrew, 2 engines, 1000 mile radius, 2 out of 3 for the Super. And well, because of the STOVL requirement crippling the JSF design.… unrealistic compromise for USN.
–Always leaves the deck with a gun. Like it or not, still needed.
–Actual working helmet with HOBS-heaters (AIM-9X) leading too, along with other target cueing…
–Slow speed handling for nose pointing in WVR– Good luck with the “F-105″.

–Out of the box, certified for a wide variety of weapons including HARM
–Because of the above mentioned items–better at CAS.
–Buddy tanker
–Proper self defense jamming including towed decoy… When the Just So Failed is naked… limited…some expendable decoys.

–Some nose-on stealth, dubious everywhere else.
–Expensive to own and operate (Even NAVAIR thinks so)

An intelligence purchaser of military equipment won’t be able to make a proper F-35 decision (based on real squadrons (not test) with a year or two of tribal knowledge with working BLOCKIII software and hardware until the early 2020s. — A jet ready to fight Operation:ALLIED FORCE over 20 years later. LOL.

Here is what NAVAIR thought of the Super v F-35C a few years ago. Hardly a ringing endorsement and even what we know to day, generous for the F-35C.

Finally, the Navy (who’s main goal is to have big, grey, expensive floaty things) has to make real value judgements in the coming years for a nation over $16T in debt at cruise-climb for more.

Yeah right, the F-35 brings so much “capability” to a joint operational commander.… on PowerPoint that is.

Most of those flags you saw happily waiving on election night were food-stamp booklets. 2012–yes we can.…vote for Santa Claus.

The USAF is ahead of you. they are NOT buying SE versions yet. But they are upgrading current Cs with ASEA and other SE features to make Eagles fly till the 2030s.

The F-35 isn’t a suitable replacement for the legacy fighters.

The F-35s are chickenfeed to the Sukhoi family, J-20 and J-31. The F-35’s high power jammer will have this capability but will likely be unusable against the most likely high threat scenarios. Again, the F-35 is the world’s first trillion-dollar plane that will certainly fail the air defence requirement – so it must be very, very bad.

For instance, the electronic warfare capabilities of the Su-35S Super Flanker-E are also more extensive than in earlier Flankers-Bs. A comprehensive internal ESM/RWR system is fitted. Wingtip KNIRTI SAP-518 series phased array EWSP jamming pods are the baseline, with 5 to 18 GHz coverage against SAM engagement radars, SAM seekers and fighter radars. A large centreline SAP-14 pod can be carried for support jamming, this 1 to 4 GHz design being analogous to US ALQ-99 pods on the EA-18G Growler, but using electronic rather than mechanical beam steering. A Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS) and expendables are carried. To enhance the potency of the EWSP suite, extensive treatment with radar absorbent materials has been applied, following the model used in the F/A-18E/F and F-15SE, with Russian claims of a thirty fold reduction in frontal X-band signature. In practice, external stores will impair signature gains much as in the Boeing fighters.

The F-35 is neither balanced survivability nor a true stealth 5th generation aircraft. The F-35 has no credible defensive jamming. Those selling the idea that the F-35’s AESA radar as a defensive device against enemy terminal radar concerns aren’t believable. Power output limits, thermal concerns along with the limited field of view and in-band frequency limits make the idea of the F-35 radar as a defensive solution of little value. It is only useful on a marketing PowerPoint slide to the clueless Bert. And, unlike the designers of the F-22, the F-35 will not be in possession of true stealth, high-speed and high altitude to help degrade enemy no-escape-zone firing solutions of weapons. The thrust-vectoring on the F-22 is also an aid for quickly changing direction at Mach and not just sub-sonic speed.

The F-35 will NOT be the game changer. It was defined during the mid-1990s to have “affordable” aerodynamic performance, stealth performance, sensor capabilities and weapons loads to be “affordably” effective against the most common threat systems of that era past – legacy Soviet Cold War era weapons, not for the 21st Century emerging threats. The F-35 is designed primarily to support ground forces on the battlefield with some self defence capabilities and is not suitable for the developing regional environment and, not suitable for close air support missions. The aircraft is unsuited for bomber and cruise missile defence due to limited range/endurance, limited weapons load, limited supersonic speed and limited agility. As its limitations are inherent to the design, they cannot be altered by incremental upgrades The F-35 will be ineffective against the current generation of extremely powerful advanced Russian and Chinese systems, as detailed above; In any combat engagements between the F-35 and such threat systems, most or all F-35 aircraft will be rapidly lost to enemy fire.

Yet as much as I would also love to see production resume and new variants of the design, that isn’t going to happen now.

The reason the Stryker is over-weight (hence upcoming upgrades to the suspension, engine, and other areas) is due to the extra armor and sensors designed to deal with large IEDs. As a result the C-130 requirement has gone out the window. The whole IAV (and FCS) concepts weren’t made with this sort of war in mind.

In terms of IED survivability the Stryker is pretty good for a vehicle of it’s weight class. Yet as we have seen the enemy will just create a larger IED to deal with heavier armor. Of course the lighter Styryker isn’t as well protected as the Bradley or Abrams, nor dedicated MRAP vehicles. Yet the utility of such MRAPs is much more limited in other conflicts.

Most of the cost comes from all of the electronics they jam into the thing. If you were to take the MTVL (stretched M113 with more power) and increase the armor, add all of the sensors and electronics of the Stryker, and so forth, it probably wouldn’t be any cheaper. It would have better off-road mobility, but it would be slower on roads, wouldn’t be any more survivable, and would be a bit more taxing from a logistical perspective.

MRAPs are vehicles that can only travel on roads or very permissive terrain, the Strkyer is much better than an MRAP, although not as good as a tracked vehicle. The “tracked vs. wheeled” debate is as old as time itself. I think there is room for both. However I do have to question the wisdom of trying to turn the Stryker into something it isn’t with the new DVH variant. Although doing the same with the M113 wouldn’t be any smarter.

William C.

“you must to write an essay for or against the F-35″. May I ask where do I have to write an essay to whom?

William C.

Well, if you don’t cancel the F-35 program it just doesn’t do you any good of going ahead with the failed program and sink the money. Because the F-35 will be increasingly expensive aircraft that will be too incapable of dealing with the high threat zones and will fail the air defence program.

William C.

Do you know that the Defence standing in region is ‘eroding? It is not just the defence cuts, its the fact that we are buying and building the wrong aircraft such as the F-35 that can’t fulfill the requirements for the anti-access high threats and is not designed as a high altitude air superiority fighter/interceptor to sweep out the Sukhoi family, J-20 and J-31. The F-35 was defined during the mid-1990s to have “affordable” aerodynamic performance, stealth performance, sensor capabilities and weapons loads to be “affordably” effective against the most common threat systems of that era past – legacy Soviet Cold War era weapons, not for the 21st Century emerging threats.

William C.

Obviously you don’t know that the western nations defence forces are eroding.

To all pro-F-35 advocates, including William C.

The majority of voices you hear from LM (Lockheed Martin) are telling you folks the F-35 is a fine aircraft for FX-III requirement that the APG-81 AESA radar is a defensive device against enemy terminal radar, has a very potent credible defensive jamming equipment to jam the Russian/Chinese fighters radars, IADS, missiles and AAAs, cheap to acquire at $60 or $70 million for R&D, own and maintain, carries more weapons load, long range, faster acceleration and rapid turn rate than its predecessors.

From Stephen O’Bryan stated. “The aircraft’s stealth will actually get stealthier over time. To be clear, every other stealth warplane has steadily lost its ability to dodge enemy radars owing to wear and tear on the plane’s special skin coating. Not so the F-35. The single-engine JSF, which is projected to cost $1 trillion to develop, buy and maintain, is fundamentally different than its predecessors. The surface material smooths out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature”.

To all pro-F-35 advocates, including William C.

What you see and hear about the F-35’s performance and its effectiveness is all based on a marketing PowerPoint slides to make you believe the aircraft is suitable for any air forces, navy and marine corps with wrong facts that make you clueless what you’re talking about.

best things are coming soon the war is over, osama is dead,the president is still there,many troops will be fired,many will get early retirement,and they all will be on OBAMACARE,so the 50% that voted for him can now sit back and put there feet up and relax until your day comes.….

I called my Congressional Rep and Boehner and told them both to basically “sit on their hands” on this one. No Republican should cooperate in any way with Obama. He’s not looking for cooperation, he’s looking for a fall guy, just like with Obamacare when Harry Reid was desperate for “bipartisanship” he was not interested in cooperation he was looking for the appearance of legitimacy by claiming that Republicans also had their finger prints on that disaster of a law.

I think the big deal here is that defense cuts of this magnitude are simply not sustainable. The last two years of both the Clinton and Carter Administrations saw the beginning of the defense buildups of the 1980s and the first decaded of the 21st century. The deeper down you cut, the higher the bow wave of demand for defense procurement you create. I’m not inclined to prophesies and predictions — but here is one I in which I have some confidence. Wait two years, and watch defense spending start to rise once more.

Well, hard landings are — hard. But let’s be totally fair about this. I give 10% of my money to the church, and 5% to help my relatives, who really do need the help. If you all think that after the Bush tax cuts are expired, I can also afford a 10–20% cut in pay, I’ll ante up. Or something. Who knew — before the election ? We had eight years of “compassionate conservatism” under Mr. Bush — if we went around like Diogenes with a lamp in the daylight, where would compassionate liberalism be found ? Compassionate conservatism — she dead.

And a new ICBM twice the size of MX new SLBM both loaded with new 1 Mt warheads. Then bring all the troops home and let the world rip itself apart :) and enjoy the view

Can’t strike as many targets with giant megaton nukes.

We could miniaturize our RVs some more and put more into each nuke…

With the way things are going, soon we’ll roll back the test ban treaty and resume testing nukes underground. It’ll be like the 60s never ended.

Let’s move Skunk Works to Mexico.

Design the new F-42 Raptor II by day, party on the beach at night.

>The United States have been so powerful for so long that we forget how challenging it is to maintain that power in the world.

Just ear at the radio that china’s economy will be #1 in the world as soon as 2016.

Something sure is that thing keeping injecting money like it have been done previously in the banking or in the defense industries (traduction: here is a blank check, make use something great; because when we go to the moon in the 60s our economy, science and technologies got so much from it) and the gentle and pacifist power shift will became a collapse. By gentle and pacifist I mean something like how UK is no longer the empire it was used to be.

well, the GOP is at fault too. After all, our dismantling of our own deterrence while China is greatly expanding its own strategic arsenal never was brought up by the GOP. I think maybe it would give us as citizens a little reality check if we go over the fiscal cliff, have our taxes go up by 6000.-/year on average and have unempoyment go to 12% and the Stock Market to 9000. Thats what a recesssion does to you. But this time it will be the Obama recession, not the Bush recession. And maybe the military would be forced to cut useless programs such as LCS or F-35C. The other good thing about us going into recession is that it would force us to stop buying stuff we dont need from countries we dont like with money we dont have. We are on our way to the United States of Greece. The fiscal cliff actually may prevent us from becoming Greece. After all, it will reduce the deficit by 500 billion/yr

Don’t worry about Obamacare. The average insurance premium will be in the range of 2000.-/family, of course with no exclusion for medical preconditions. the Net effect will be that less people will be insured not more. There will not be much relaxing for anybody..

Suppress a lot of F-35 and start now the FA/XX with Boeing in contractor.

To get out from that mess,
may be the USAF, USN, MC should be inter
ested in having a look at an omnirole solution such as the Rafale who was brillant over Libia.
A ” Spitefire”

To get out from that mess,
may be the USAF, USN, MC should be inter
ested in having a look at an omnirole solution such as the Rafale who was brillant over Libia.
A ” Spitfire” of the 21th century ?

Lowest common denomenator thinking is just part of the contractor world. Just the same as th F-35 is a falure thus all aircraft must be a failure too.

I don’t quite think that the rafale is that much a necessity for USAF and others –though the navalized version is likely to offer higher performance than a SH in air superiority. All the rest is a matter of software and sensors, nothing that can’t be retrofitted into f-16 and SH.

Don’t get me wrong, french engineer are very good and the rafale could do much more should it have more budget; they build that fighter jet on their own and the AESA radar is being tested slightly ahead of European competition. For a country that no longer teach ph.D in Mathematics this is quite impressive.

Should it be poorly managed, the FA/XX got the potential to be the next most costly program ever. Just like the LCS there are a lot of good concepts in the f-35, but the implementation sucks.

If they want to make a dream, make it in limited quantities; if they want something useful and mass produced, they have to cope with reality.

Mathematical logic say that a person build is idea, is strategies, with was is available. I say keep SH and f-16 with state of the art electronics and sensor, and complete them with the X-43. Keep technology pushing until it became realistic to produce a reasonably priced fa/xx –without depending on vaporware stuff. That mean developing a platform that is flexible enough to adapt to upcoming technologies, without having any ridiculous weight or structural constraint, with weapon bay that can handle long range missile and heavy bomb. All that at a performance cost, a wise trade-off for a SH replacement.

Blight, it’s been twenty-one years by my count.

Umm…you lost me at “J-20 and J-31.”

Sorry, blight. LM is too politically astute for that. Everyone knows the optimum number of suppliers for any defense project is 535. Last I checked, there were no Congressional Districts in Mexico.

I’m dating myself by thinking it’s still the late ‘90s/early 2k’s when the 2010’s are over…Hah.

I suppose if we conquered Mexico and opened a EEZ for business, America can become a manufacturing powerhouse again.

Why deal with a country that would rather steal your IP? Build in Mexico: between two worlds!

We still need platforms to build, test and validate the avionics gizmos before plugging them into next gen aircraft.

It’s been proven that the presence of old legacy systems doesn’t necessarily kill business: The F-5’s floating around did not eat the F-16’s lunch. It was better, available for a good price and in the right hands could do serious damage.

Similarly, well-upgraded legacy systems will bring money in for the vendor in terms of support contracts and avionics upgrades as someone pursues the illusion of attritional parity with technical parity.

You know, It doesn’t matter if you are republican or democrat, if you are an American of these United States, then we’re all in it together. This election was America speaking. These are true Americans — not illegals, as many of you would like to think. Please stop demograding the President and democrats. Republicans need to work with the President to get this country on the right track. Aafter 8 years of Bushism, we need our President. You need to understand that on your best day, you’re not as smart as the President has proven to be.on his worst day. So, deal with the powers that be, and stop whinning like little school children after losing a game of stick ball..

Almost all empires fell from inside .… a long term social change.… for example the Romans used to throw the catholics to the pits and lions and now look at the strength of the Vatican and the catholic holy church inside Italy. Maybe you should worry more such as how many and how fast are growing the Muslim population inside of the US.….….. before the attack with planes to the towers no thought about it .… and people worried with sequestration should look to a wider picture. What is the threat for the US ? .…. what does the US wants?? .… fighting for the last drop of oil with China or developing a decent fusion reactor?! .….

China can only be “contained” if you have Russia on our side.

Imagine how screwed the 4th gen is.

No budget for past 4 years. Congrees and the Senate to thank.If Congrees and senate wantit to happen it does, but if the do not want it happen it dosen’t. Yet we the poeple still contuine to re-elect these poeple to do our business. ITS TIME to let them know that they work for us.

The so called fiscal cliff was a bipartisan effort by both houses of congress and the administration. So what is the problem? Everyone within the government knows without any doubt regarding the real facts of DoD budget planning for the future…THERE IS PELNTY OF ROOM TO CUT THE INCREASE IN DOD SPENDING…without any problem. At the end of each fiscal year hundreds of program offices spend their excess funds on everything from furniture chairs, wall TVs to so called conferences. We within the budget circlses know this and see it. There is no fiscal cliff regarding Pentagon Program WASTE!!!

The Pentagon can join Boeing’s announcement of cutting 30 percent of their top executives.…it is time for the pentagon to do the same. Congress needs to take the lead and reduce the number of Flag and SES and GS14/15 equilavent positions which have been created over the past ten years.

Stuck in the 90’s, huh? Explains a lot of your other posts. ;-)

President Obama has been driving this country further and further from the right track since the day he was elected to the Senate.

Fortunately, most of the American people still blame the republicans and George W Bush for causing the economic meltdown of the US economy. Their own actions demonstrated they didn’t give a hoot about the welfare of the nation while they were all happily feeding at the trough when we had a POTUS that couldn’t be bothered to read the budget (or anything else that hit his desk — that is if his own staff’s recollections mean anything) before signing it.

And BTW — the Congressional Budget Office lays about 80% of the blame for the economy and fiscal cliff on the republicans: tax breaks for the wealthy; the largest corporate welfare program in history; and two unfunded wars were sufficient to do the job that 60 years of the Cold War with the USSR failed to do. And it was all chalked up to simple greed and incompetence.

I can imagine how screwed the F-35 is.


“Imagine how screwed the 4th gen is”.

It still doesn’t do you any good of going ahead with the F-35 program and sink the money that is unable to take on changed threat environment.


” We need 5,000 F-35A’s”. What is that going to achieve? This aircraft is not good at anything, its a turkey.


Your country really needs to be equipped with advanced F-15s, F-16s and more F-22s. No F-35s.

No kidding! Stupid remarks

The obvious conclusion is that you’re an idiot.…

I couldn’t agree with you more. I don’t why know some people (mostly republician) think that our President of these United States is a Marxist, a Socialist, not american, etc., when all that he is trying to do is help all of the people, and if the poor and middle class need a little extra help so be it. Yes, stop whinning republicians and get with the program.

I’ll agree with you on your comment. Having retired from the Federal Government, I know for a fact that we wasted lot of money (Billions of Dollars) on programs that never delivered the products, or delivered a quality ptoduct.

Yeah, righte-o, Lance…

Be thankful that Obama WAS reelected, otherwise, we would of been in for at least 4 more years of failed GOP (Greed Over Patriotism), policy decisions. Look at what HalliBush, Inc. did to this country! What are you dittoheads, deaf, dumb and blind?

How about digging up perfectly good lawns, flowers and trees and replanting simply because you’ve budgeted for this and don’t want to lose the funding at the end of the fiscal year.

Wrong, dittohead. Most of those people you saw waving flags were true Americans AND it was the majority who reelected the President. Get it? THE MAJORITY of people saw through the rightwing BS, so get over it looser, YOU’RE the minority!

SOcial Security is not funded by the budget, Neither is Medicare. You should know what you are talking about before you express your opinion.


The obvious conclusion is that you’re an idiot to believe the F-35 is a needed aircraft for the requirements. Read what I posted down below.

Well, what happens is that the government “punishes” the military by taking away their Tree Fund.

And since the military has to fight for its dollars against other branches of government…

Ten years post-Soviet? Try 21 years post-Soviet. The USSR fell in 1991. Just saying.

I’m taking about bringing back the old proposal for a 39 1 Mt warhead Titan III derivative from the 60’s :)

So should the majority rule in all cases?

There are only 435 districts the 535 included 100 senators.

I agree the ratification of New START in a lame duck session of Congress was a disgrace. We should have never gone below Start I levels of 6000 deployed warheads.

the real change that needs to take place is stopping the wars and getting the personnel back to conus. close all the bases in foreign countries(they hate us anyway) let the military spend their money in the USA not europe, japan, korea, turkey, north african states and countries. if the individual service members paychecks were to be spent in the USA then the geographic areas they spend them in would be greatly improved with the jobs going to americans not foreign nationals that can’t stand us. we can control any part of the world with carriers, subs, and long range aircraft with better trained personnel and better equipment that we could obtain by having more money obtained by shutting down the money flow to other countries.

Not funded by the budget? How can something be funded by a budget? Yes they are funded by taxes (payroll taxes) but the payments to individuals are coming from today’s workers and the people collecting are getting far more in benefits then they ever contributed to the system when they were working.

That is called a Ponzi scheme.


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.