U. S. Defense Budget

[D-rock]

Entitlement programs is are causing the U.S. budget deficit much more then defense spending. The real variable to glance at is defense spending as a percentage of GDP. We spending much more then many countries like Japan, Germany, and most of European countries; they should spend more on defense. All of countries I mentioned would have difficult launching independent operations without U. S. help.

Social safety nets and the government spending for the betterment of it's own people are actually needed and justified. Having a mindlessly overlarge military so we can continually meddle everywhere else in the world isn't.

Both have been talking for the last 20 fuckin' years. And it can stay talk. Neither country can be trusted to to send their militaries out in the world again.

To still hold what those countries did in WWII against them seems kind of silly and petty considering how much each country has turned themselves around in a cultural sense. Hardly anybody is even alive anymore that was an adult when that occurred and soon nobody will even be alive from that era. Sadly, I think I distrust the US more than either of those two at this time. It's also not like the US doesn't have it's share of atrocities in the past. I'm not going to base them being allowed to have a military off an assumption that Germans and the Japanese are inherently more evil than anybody else.

 

[spacearrow99]

Social safety nets and the government spending for the betterment of it's own people are actually needed and justified. Having a mindlessly overlarge military so we can continually meddle everywhere else in the world isn't.

The U. S. military is not large by past standards; modern warfare is very expensive. The two wars have rightly ballooned the defense budget. The U. S. could have pulled out Iraq and Afghanistan years ago; both countries would have been much worse off, and then we would have to go back and restart nation building. The defense budget is bloated in its current form cuts are being made, but they must not hurt deployed troops. A nation's defense budget should be at least 3% of GDP. Military spending currently is about 5% of GDP; the defense budget was at least 5.6% and up during the Cold War. The U. S. military's policing of the world has enabled the American economy grow for the past 60+ years.

 

[Rey C.]

There is a difference between having a robust, advanced, and proper military to keep one safe and letting military spending get so out of hand that one country spends about three times as much as the rest of the world combined, especially outside of being in a war or having any credibly large threat to oneself.

All the while that money could go to reduce the deficit, give people a proper education, house the poor, or give the poor decent jobs (more efficiently than mindless military projects and supplying it existence at this level).

^^^ THIS! :thumbsup:

 

[Rey C.]

Entitlement programs is are causing the U.S. budget deficit much more then defense spending. The real variable to glance at is defense spending as a percentage of GDP. We spending much more then many countries like Japan, Germany, and most of European countries; they should spend more on defense. All of countries I mentioned would have difficult launching independent operations without U. S. help.

Another category I've looked at is domestic infrastructure spending as a percentage of GDP. It is at its lowest level as a percentage of GDP in over 20 years. That bridge in Iraq that we allegedly rebuilt eight times (they'd blow it up, we'd rebuild it... they'd blow it up, we'd rebuild it, etc.) is just a sad example of what has been pissing me off for years. I am firmly against nation building exercises. If you deserve a slap, we may slap you. But after slapping you, the U.S. taxpayer should not have to pay to take you to the hospital. And that's been our policy for well over half a century. As roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and the power grid crumble here, we're spending far too much money maintaining nation building exercises around the world. If Germany and Japan must continue to be judged and limited by what their leaders did in the last century, fine. Seems completely irrational to me, but whatever. But in order for us to continue having troops in Japan, Korea and Germany, the U.S. taxpayers need a check from all of those that we are "protecting".

IMO, it's time to do it "Roman style". And yes, I do believe in the concept of "total war". Sometimes only a good beating can teach a good lesson. But we are not the world's policemen. And our military members are not security guards. But if they're going to be security guards, it's high time for those who need guards to start paying for it out of their own pockets. I put together something about two years ago. I figured then that about $150K per year per soldier should do he trick. That would cover all costs plus provide an acceptable level of profit to the Defense Dept and the Treasury. If the needy don't like that price, they can always call Blackwater and get a quote from them. But that will never happen. We'll just keep borrowing money from the Chinese so that we can hand it off to all of the little beggar nations of the world.... plus our "friends & allies". Course, when long term interest rates eventually rise again, things might get ugly for the taxpayer. Interest costs as a percentage of GDP are about as low as they're ever going to be right now. That is going to eat our lunch in the years to come.

The Collapse Of Public Infrastructure Spending In One Chart

I would cut/gut wasteful spending on defense items, as well as the various entitlement programs that have more than run their course. No more of this either/or business. Waste, fraud and abuse in all programs would go first, and then we'd see what was truly needed and what was just a gimme program that actually provides disincentives for being productive and responsible.

 

[georges]

the f15 is in service till 2030 as much as the b52h and the b1b lancer. Don't know about the f16 block 52.

 

[vodkazvictim]

the f15 is in service till 2030 as much as the b52h and the b1b lancer. Don't know about the f16 block 52.

The B52 will go on forever.
They'll have to reopen the factory and build more.
You know it's already outlived it's replacement, the B58 Hustler and continues to serve alongside 2 more of it's replacements, the B1 and B2? It willl go on forever.

 

[Jack Davenport]

The B52 will go on forever.
They'll have to reopen the factory and build more.
You know it's already outlived it's replacement, the B58 Hustler and continues to serve alongside 2 more of it's replacements, the B1 and B2? It willl go on forever.

The B-58 was never intended to be it's replacement. It was intended fly at high altitude and avoid fighters.. The Hustler replaced the B-47 medium range bomber.

 

[spacearrow99]

The B52 will go on forever.
They'll have to reopen the factory and build more.
You know it's already outlived it's replacement, the B58 Hustler and continues to serve alongside 2 more of it's replacements, the B1 and B2? It willl go on forever.

The Air Force already to replacement programs for the B52. The Next-Generation Bomber (2018) and 2037 Bomber programs.

 

[vodkazvictim]

The Air Force already to replacement programs for the B52. The Next-Generation Bomber (2018) and 2037 Bomber programs.

Oh please, they've already tried to replace it thrice and it's still going because they still need it.
Because american military manufacturers don't have to compete anymore, they don't, which is why the B52 is still going; everything produced to replace it has cost a pretty penny but not delivered well enough.

 

[Mayhem]

The B52 is going to outlive everyone on this board, regardless of age. And if they're smart, so will the A10 and F15.

 

[spacearrow99]

Oh please, they've already tried to replace it thrice and it's still going because they still need it.
Because american military manufacturers don't have to compete anymore, they don't, which is why the B52 is still going; everything produced to replace it has cost a pretty penny but not delivered well enough.

The only thing the B52 has on the B-1 and B-2 is loitering time over their targets. The B-1 has a much higher weapons payload then B-52 and it has terrain following radar. The B-2 is stealth and can carry as much ordnance as the B52. The B-52 have their place as bomb trucks for conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. B-52s would not be used to penetrate Chinese or Russian air defenses.

 

[Mayhem]

The only thing the B52 has on the B-1 and B-2 is loitering time over their targets. The B-1 has a much higher weapons payload then B-52 and it has terrain following radar. The B-2 is stealth and can carry as much ordnance as the B52. The B-52 have their place as bomb trucks for conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. B-52s would not be used to penetrate Chinese or Russian air defenses.

Wrong. The B2 carries 20,000 lbs. less ordinance and the B1 only carries more if the wing hardpoints are utilized. And again, the one area where we seem to be talking to a wall (you) is cost.

B52 - 55 million
B2 - 737 million
B1 - 283 million

 

[spacearrow99]

Wrong. The B2 carries 20,000 lbs. less ordinance and the B1 only carries more if the wing hardpoints are utilized. And again, the one area where we seem to be talking to a wall (you) is cost.

B52 - 55 million
B2 - 737 million
B1 - 283 million

I was wrong, but so are you. The B-2 can carry 50,000 lbs. The B-52 also has wing hard points. The B-1 and B-2 are much more complex designs then the B-52, so they cost much more then the B-52. All three aircraft have different roles for U. S. Air Force.

 

[Mayhem]

The B52 carries 50,000 lbs. internally + hardpoints.

No one is disputing that the three aircraft have different roles. In fact, no one said that they don't so I'm wondering why you feel it relevant to say that.

The point that VV made and I agree with is that regardless of when they say they think the B52 is going to leave the service, it won't. They are going to keep pushing the date back, like they have already done several times, and it will keep flying.

 

[spacearrow99]

The B52 carries 50,000 lbs. internally + hardpoints.

No one is disputing that the three aircraft have different roles. In fact, no one said that they don't so I'm wondering why you feel it relevant to say that.

The point that VV made and I agree with is that regardless of when they say they think the B52 is going to leave the service, it won't. They are going to keep pushing the date back, like they have already done several times, and it will keep flying.

The U. S. Air Force loves stealthy aircraft so the B52's time will come up in 2040.

 

[vodkazvictim]

The B52 is going to outlive everyone on this board, regardless of age. And if they're smart, so will the A10 and F15.

I agree.
Not so sure on the F15... but then again, what can they replace it with? Companies want to make money rather than provide an aircraft, so maybe you'll be stuck with it...

The only thing the B52 has on the B-1 and B-2 is loitering time over their targets. The B-1 has a much higher weapons payload then B-52 and it has terrain following radar. The B-2 is stealth and can carry as much ordnance as the B52. The B-52 have their place as bomb trucks for conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. B-52s would not be used to penetrate Chinese or Russian air defenses.

It would be quick, simple and cheap to fit terrain following radar into a B52 and because they're so enourmous, would have no impact on performance.
Penetrator aircraft are a very silly concept. The smart money is on B52s firing ALCAMs at standoff distances from enemy airspace.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; when they retired the F14 they should have put the radars on the front and rear of the B52s and hung the AIM154 Phoenix missiles (that could only be used with the F14) on the wings.
The majority of aircraft in the world would then be unable to close to kill range on a B52.

Wrong. The B2 carries 20,000 lbs. less ordinance and the B1 only carries more if the wing hardpoints are utilized. And again, the one area where we seem to be talking to a wall (you) is cost.

B52 - 55 million
B2 - 737 million
B1 - 283 million

:nono:
Did you forget maintenance costs?

I was wrong, but so are you. The B-2 can carry 50,000 lbs. The B-52 also has wing hard points. The B-1 and B-2 are much more complex designs then the B-52, so they cost much more then the B-52. All three aircraft have different roles for U. S. Air Force.

Different roles?
Last i checked B52 was a bomber and both B1 and B2 are penetrators, which is a role much better served by ALCMs.

The B52 carries 50,000 lbs. internally + hardpoints.

No one is disputing that the three aircraft have different roles. In fact, no one said that they don't so I'm wondering why you feel it relevant to say that.

The point that VV made and I agree with is that regardless of when they say they think the B52 is going to leave the service, it won't. They are going to keep pushing the date back, like they have already done several times, and it will keep flying.

It will keep flying.
They haven't actually done that much to explore the potential of the B52 yet, just look at the Tu95: AWACS, passenger aircraft, ASW... there's no reason why the B52 can't have an AWACS model to share commonality of parts.
For me the major drawback of B52 is that it's a runway crusher.

The U. S. Air Force loves stealthy aircraft so the B52's time will come up in 2040.

No. The B2s will already be retired by then, forcing the B52s to soldier on.

 

[spacearrow99]

I agree.
Not so sure on the F15... but then again, what can they replace it with? Companies want to make money rather than provide an aircraft, so maybe you'll be stuck with it...

It would be quick, simple and cheap to fit terrain following radar into a B52 and because they're so enourmous, would have no impact on performance.
Penetrator aircraft are a very silly concept. The smart money is on B52s firing ALCAMs at standoff distances from enemy airspace..

The B-52s nickname is BUFF; its a hard handling aircraft which is not suited for the penetrator mission.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; when they retired the F14 they should have put the radars on the front and rear of the B52s and hung the AIM154 Phoenix missiles (that could only be used with the F14) on the wings.
The majority of aircraft in the world would then be unable to close to kill range on a B52.

:nono:
Did you forget maintenance costs?

Different roles?
Last i checked B52 was a bomber and both B1 and B2 are penetrators, which is a role much better served by ALCMs..

B-1Bs have the capacity to carry ALCMS, but the U. S. Air Force does not want integrate them on the B-1Bs. The Air Force wants to prevent cuts forms its big bomber fleet.

It will keep flying.
They haven't actually done that much to explore the potential of the B52 yet, just look at the Tu95: AWACS, passenger aircraft, ASW... there's no reason why the B52 can't have an AWACS model to share commonality of parts.
For me the major drawback of B52 is that it's a runway crusher.

No. The B2s will already be retired by then, forcing the B52s to soldier on.

Yeah, the B2s may be retired before the B-52s. The Next Generation Bomber maintenance costs should much lower the B-2s maintenance costs. The B-2 was prototype for clean line stealth aircraft. The U. S. military has sense developed F22, F35, and the Bird of Prey in secret.

 

[vodkazvictim]

The B-52s nickname is BUFF; its a hard handling aircraft which is not suited for the penetrator mission.

Everyone knows the nickname, what's your point?
Few aircraft handle easily and frankly, once you've nailed in all the electronics a B1 has it still goes subsonic on the deck, just like a B1. I fail to see how it's any less suited.

B-1Bs have the capacity to carry ALCMS, but the U. S. Air Force does not want integrate them on the B-1Bs. The Air Force wants to prevent cuts forms its big bomber fleet.

So what? You can carry them on the B52 cheaper.
That air force logic doesn't make sense.
Isn't the B1 a big bomber?

Go have a look at the Tu160 Blackjack. The Russkis stuck to their goals and they have a penetrator aircraft. The Tu160 is what the B1 was supposed to be.

Yeah, the B2s may be retired before the B-52s. The Next Generation Bomber maintenance costs should much lower the B-2s maintenance costs. The B-2 was prototype for clean line stealth aircraft. The U. S. military has sense developed F22, F35, and the Bird of Prey in secret.

I'd bet money on it.
Yeah... you may wanna research f22 and f35...

 

[Sam Fisher]

I Liked Ike!

Pres Eisenhower's Farewell Address In Which He Warns Americans About The Military Industrial Complex

Fast forward to the 3 minute mark.

 

[spacearrow99]

Everyone knows the nickname, what's your point?
Few aircraft handle easily and frankly, once you've nailed in all the electronics a B1 has it still goes subsonic on the deck, just like a B1.

The B-1B has a variable-seep wing, so the B-1B is much more suited to the low level penetrator role.

I fail to see how it's any less suited.So what? You can carry them on the B52 cheaper.
That air force logic doesn't make sense.
Isn't the B1 a big bomber?

Go have a look at the Tu160 Blackjack. The Russkis stuck to their goals and they have a penetrator aircraft. The Tu160 is what the B1 was supposed to be.
I'd bet money on it..

The B-1 has a lower cost per flight hour than the B-52; they can also carry a much heavier weapons payload than the Tu-160 and B-52. The B-1B can operate from shorter airfields than B-52. The

Yeah... you may wanna research f22 and f35...

I already know about the high maintenance cost of the F-22 and F-35. The maintenance cost of aircraft usually increase per generation. The Next Generation Bomber maintenance cost should be lower since the program will be using current stealth technology. I hope Boeing and Lockheed Martin can keep the program on budget.