The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-12-2012, 02:58 PM   #26
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
Most of the ass clowns have never been in the military and do not have a clue on what is required to keep them operational. Nor the manning of such.

I suspect their " REAL" knowledge of the military is from their commie professors in college.

Which explains all of the stupidity.
Or being a member of a Navy family with 6 former and 2 active members, oh and a former 3-star admiral's opinion...

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/48991511#48991511

Quote:
"We are using the wrong force-sizing metric, from the Cold War, today. It's about capability and about knowledge...so that you can have a more agile and smarter force...in order to go get the adversary... What kind of capability, not size, do you need to accomplish your mission?"
Also, indirectly quoting him: The force-sizing metric that is still in the new strategy by Panetta is the same strategy that Gen. Powell used in 1990, which is that we have to be able to fight two land wars, two stressing scenarios, in Iraq and South Korea simultaneously. Now that there is no longer a war in Iraq, and our military says that we can support South Korea through air power only, what's missing in this debate is a force capability metric, not one that's just based on how many ships, how many aircraft, when each of them is capable of doing so much more than they were before.

And another direct quote:

"[The Military] is not a jobs program. It's a find and defeat the enemy program.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 03:00 PM   #27
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
What good is a military that drives the economy that supports it into the ground because of its exorbitant cost?

For example, the F-35 JSF:



WTF?!?
So what you're saying is this new "unaffordable" weapon could be financed for 20 years on about 30%-40% of this year's budget deficit.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 03:06 PM   #28
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
What good is a military that drives the economy that supports it into the ground because of its exorbitant cost?

For example, the F-35 JSF:



WTF?!?
You need to be carefully when you start using then year dollars, because many time the OSD/Services comptrollers use inflation factors that are higher then actually inflation and you need to bring them all costs into 2001 base years dollars to compare apples to apples.

For the F35, it is interesting case study. The idea behind it was to single up the requirements across the 3 services (AF, Navy and MC) and have single vehicle capable of support each services mission. The idea was the upfront cost (R&D, manufacturing,productions)would be greater, but the O&S cost (where over 80% of the cost of weapon system is) would be less with common parts, spares, training and logistics requirements. Great idea but when you jerk around the industrial base you start to cost growth which wasn't planned for.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 03:14 PM   #29
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Fed also you need to realize that 10 yrs ago China didn't have their own advanced fighter being built or an aircraft carrier development program.
We were running more carriers (which were a lot more costly per unit to run) in the 90's than we are now with hundreds of billions less expenditures.

So, what is the extra $350bn/yr for?

Quote:
They are spending by some accounts 10 times more on the military then they report. Don't think for a second they can't catch us in another 10 yrs.
You toss this claim around all the time and never provide even a single bit of support. Anyone can just make sh*t up.

China right now is dumping massive amounts of cash into infrastructure and manufacturing. That is what they are currently beating us in, badly.

You know tools what won WWII? It wasn't the tanks, ships and airplanes that we had when the war started. It was the industrial might needed to outbuild the other guys. Take a look at the pacific. We had 3 carriers in 1941, and over 100 by 1945.

It was the same story on the western front. The allies won in large part due to superior industrial capacity (in particular the U.S. and Russia which were each able to out produce The Axis powers).

And of course, the world changes. What currently dominates the battlefield won't be what dominates in the future. We seem to re-learn that painful lesson every time we go to war.

What does all that mean? If we want to safeguard ourselves, we need to be focusing on the industrial foundation that will be needed to build the tools we will need to fight in any major conflict.

The only thing you've said that is anywhere in the realm of smart is that we certainly can't stop building carriers and other things, lest we lose the knowledge and ability to do so. But again, we're back to the same question I've posed many times before: What has an extra $350bn/yr in military spending done for us?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 03:21 PM   #30
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
And of course, the world changes. What currently dominates the battlefield won't be what dominates in the future. We seem to re-learn that painful lesson every time we go to war.
Although everything you said was true, this is perhaps the most telling and relevant, considering that even the "battlefield" itself has changed...and nobody can point to it on a map.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 03:37 PM   #31
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Of course, my $350bn figure, btw, only includes money given directly to the Department of War... err excuse me the Department of Defense. It does not include the indirect costs such as VA, military pensions, NSA, DoE, etc.

In total, we're spending in the neighborhood of $500bn/year more on military than we were 10 years ago (some estimates of total defense related spending go as high as $1.4 trillion a year).

Well, we need to develope new weapons systems! I agree, but even the hugely costly weapons systems brought up here don't even begin to explain that increase. The F-35 has accrued about $50 billion in R&D costs, and estimates for a "full" production run (which has not occured) are another $200bn. How long has the f-35 been in development? 15 years? So, even if we had expended that $250 billion (we haven't) that only accounts for $17bn a year.

What about the Ford Class? The Ford class is an overhaul of the Nimitz, and the cost to produce the first one is pegged @ $42 billion (R&D + unit cost). That class has been under way for 10 years, so we're talking $4bn/yr a year for the last decade.

So, those two major new weapons systems have added ~$20bn/year to spending.

So again, what has the rest of that $350bn bought us?

Last edited by Fedaykin; 12-12-2012 at 03:43 PM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 03:44 PM   #32
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
What good is a military that drives the economy that supports it into the ground because of its exorbitant cost?

For example, the F-35 JSF:



WTF?!?
DO you really think that advances in aircraft are going to make flying 35 year old planes a long term good idea..

Just sometimes you have to pay the real price of having a secure homeland..



The $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike fighter program may well be the largest single global defense program in history. This major multinational program is intended to produce an “affordably stealthy” multi-role fighter that will have 3 variants: the F-35A conventional version for the US Air Force et. al.; the F-35B Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing for the US Marines, British Royal Navy, et. al.; and the F-35C conventional carrier-launched version for the US Navy. The aircraft is named after Lockheed’s famous WW2 P-38 Lightning, and the Mach 2, stacked-engine English Electric (now BAE) Lightning jet. Lightning II system development partners included The USA & Britain (Tier 1), Italy and the Netherlands (Tier 2), and Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Turkey (Tier 3), with Singapore and Israel as “Security Cooperation Partners,” and Japan as the 1st export customer.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...am-2012-07501/

so what is the problem?

and what has this to do with the topic

More Obama green energy money wasted.
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:00 PM   #33
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
We were running more carriers (which were a lot more costly per unit to run) in the 90's than we are now with hundreds of billions less expenditures.
. Take a look at the pacific. We had 3 carriers in 1941, and over 100 by 1945.
[/B]
Quote:
Before the war, the United States started production of 24 new large Essex carriers, 9 smaller Independence class carriers, and an even greater number of small, slow escort carriers which were used to support ground operations and provide anti-submarine escort, among other duties. (Reynolds 132) In 1943, the new American carriers began to enter service, and due to factors detailed below, none of the new Essex class carriers were sunk, even to kamikaze attacks late in the war
..
http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/carriertactics.html

so pray tell it was not wam bam thank you mam building them in 4 years they had 35+ already on the ways..

as the war went on they built or restructured quite of few existing ships by adding an upper flight deck to them, to make them into Carriers..

Rosie the Riveter kicked some ass..
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:02 PM   #34
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
DO you really think that advances in aircraft are going to make flying 35 year old planes a long term good idea..

Just sometimes you have to pay the real price of having a secure homeland..

...

More Obama green energy money wasted[/COLOR]
Love the double standard nutbag. So, you have no problem with hundreds of billions wasted on military spending, because "you have to pay the real price of having a secure homeland" but when a pittance compared to that is lost in a failed energy R&D venture it's terrible!

Doesn't matter how many big fancy super carriers and jets we have if we don't have the energy tech to run them and build more of them long term. There is only so much oil in the world.

Also, no military force will prevent flooding of coastal cities, loss of cropland and increased expenses due to more powerful weather.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:04 PM   #35
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,742
Default

Fed just throws out the number 360 billion then rags on me for making **** up? Every defense watchdog group claims China lies about what they spend on military. Things are more expensive this decade bacause we are buidling a new fighter the f-35, a new destroyer the Zumwalt, Ford class Carriers to replace ones that are retiring because they are almost 50 yrs old.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:04 PM   #36
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,742
Default

We have enough oil for a long long time. Even when it runs out i doubt its solar that replaces it.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:10 PM   #37
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
..
http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/carriertactics.html

so pray tell it was not wam bam thank you mam building them in 4 years they had 35+ already on the ways..

as the war went on they built or restructured quite of few existing ships by adding an upper flight deck to them, to make them into Carriers..
"Before the war" means 1941, when it was clear the U.S would not be able to stay out of the war that had started nearly a decade before.

The Essex class ship were all built between 1941 and 1950. The Essex herself was laid down on 28 April, 1941.

The Yorktown (2nd Essex class) was laid down 6 days before Pearl.

Nice try at dodging the point btw.

Quote:
Rosie the Riveter kicked some ass..
That she did. Luckily she had the industrial infrastructure necessary to do that ass kicking.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:11 PM   #38
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Love the double standard nutbag. So, you have no problem with hundreds of billions wasted on military spending, because "you have to pay the real price of having a secure homeland" but when a pittance compared to that is lost in a failed energy R&D venture it's terrible!

Doesn't matter how many big fancy super carriers and jets we have if we don't have the energy tech to run them and build more of them long term. There is only so much oil in the world.

Also, no military force will prevent flooding of coastal cities, loss of cropland and increased expenses due to more powerful weather.
here is the rub.. I've been in the military and understand what it take to have a secure country..

I live 3 miles from perhaps what is now the largest US military base in the world. I see the infrastructure that it takes to house those brave soldiers.. many who have just come home from the middle east and know they will be going back..

Was in the navy and Know what it take to keep those ships that secure the shipping lanes so you can have your cheap imports to make your life so easy..

I know what it takes because I have been there and done that..

I have earned the right to complain about wasting money on ventures that are pet projects of NOBAMA and in this case now have been sold to the Chinese at a fraction of the cost to the money that was given to them by the US taxpayers.. IIRC that particular facility never made a single ****ing battery that it was intended to make..

I have earned the right to be incensed by the assclown in the white house wasting money..

What have you done for your country?
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:15 PM   #39
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
here is the rub.. I've been in the military and understand what it take to have a secure country..
If you're such an expert, then you should be easily able to answer my question. What has $350bn/yr of increased spending bought us?

Quote:
I have earned the right to be incensed by the assclown in the white house wasting money..

What have you done for your country?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:20 PM   #40
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Fed just throws out the number 360 billion then rags on me for making **** up?
I know you are terrible math, but I didn't realize you could even do simple arithmetic.

Quote:
Every defense watchdog group claims China lies about what they spend on military.
Still not proving any actual evidence.

Quote:
Things are more expensive this decade bacause we are buidling a new fighter the f-35, a new destroyer the Zumwalt, Ford class Carriers to replace ones that are retiring because they are almost 50 yrs old.
Which I've already shown doesn't account for very much of the change at all. The Zumalt has so far cost around $20bn and has been in development for over a decade, so now (including the other costs for the F-35 and the Ford I mentioned before) we're talking $21bn/year in average cost for those three programs.

So, what has the other $329bn bought us?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:21 PM   #41
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
"Before the war" means 1941, when it was clear the U.S would not be able to stay out of the war that had started nearly a decade before.

The Essex class ship were all built between 1941 and 1950. The Essex herself was laid down on 28 April, 1941.

The Yorktown (2nd Essex class) was laid down 6 days before Pearl.

Nice try at dodging the point btw.



That she did. Luckily she had the industrial infrastructure necessary to do that !@#$%^&* kicking.
nearly a decade before typical liberal making crap up!! the earliest part of WWII was when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938..

3 years before we entered the war.. hardly a decade..
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:24 PM   #42
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
If you're such an expert, then you should be easily able to answer my question. What has $350bn/yr of increased spending bought us?
If you are interested here is the line item breakdown:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...54_053#usgs302
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:29 PM   #43
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
nearly a decade before typical liberal making crap up!! the earliest part of WWII was when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938..

3 years before we entered the war.. hardly a decade..
Germany broke the Versialles treaty in 1935 and moved troops into the Rhineland in 1936. The war didn't get hot until 1938, but it was already in progress by 1935.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:29 PM   #44
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,757
Default

God I hate defending cutthemdown, but he is correct that China does spend more then what they official publish. They don't official report everything budget toward the military, plus the PLA earns its own money through the number of companies they control or have part ownership in. Those companies rack in billions of additional dollars a year that is unaccounted for.

http://www.ti-defence.org/our-work/d...ned-businesses

and from Wiklesks

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_CHINA...nuary_17,_2001
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:30 PM   #45
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
If you are interested here is the line item breakdown:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...54_053#usgs302
Not sure what your point is, but perhaps I should clarify. What has that spending done to further our defense objectives?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:37 PM   #46
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
God I hate defending cutthemdown, but he is correct that China does spend more then what they official publish. They don't official report everything budget toward the military, plus the PLA earns its own money through the number of companies they control or have part ownership in. Those companies rack in billions of additional dollars a year that is unaccounted for.

http://www.ti-defence.org/our-work/d...ned-businesses

and from Wiklesks

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_CHINA...nuary_17,_2001
Thanks for the info, though I am unimpressed with what is being reported here.

So, in 1997 they had some military owned businesses that earned around $1-3bn a year. This is supposed to be of concern?

The U.S. "hides" all kinds of military spending (the ~$700bn given to the DoD is not even close to the sum of all defense spending. There's the DoE (maintains all nukes), NASA (does military R&D), The VA, Military Pensions (part of the treasure dept.), Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, etc.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:43 PM   #47
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Thanks for the info, though I am unimpressed with what is being reported here.

So, in 1997 they had some military owned businesses that earned around $1-3bn a year. This is supposed to be of concern?

The U.S. "hides" all kinds of military spending (the ~$700bn given to the DoD is not even close to the sum of all defense spending. There's the DoE (maintains all nukes), NASA (does military R&D), The VA, Military Pensions (part of the treasure dept.), Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, etc.
This might be a better article from April this year. http://www.economist.com/node/21552193 . I just pulled the first two googled article for the previous post.

Also remember that China is regional power so you need to keep that in context when compare spending between their military and US military.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 04:51 PM   #48
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
This might be a better article from April this year. http://www.economist.com/node/21552193 . I just pulled the first two googled article for the previous post.

Also remember that China is regional power so you need to keep that in context when compare spending between their military and US military.
So this says they spend 50% more than they claim (which puts them spending less than 1/4 what we currently spend). A far cry from the claimed 10x. It also projects that China will be outspending us in 25 years. That's pretty meaningless as we can barely figure out whats going to happen next year let along 25 years from now.

But again, where China is beating us hands down in the investment they are making in their infrastructure and manufacturing capability. That is the true threat. We're wasting a lot of money building things that in 25 years probably won't even be relevant on the battlefield. By all means we should continue R&D (including building things) but not at the expense of our own economic and industrial strength.

Last edited by Fedaykin; 12-12-2012 at 04:55 PM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 05:13 PM   #49
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
I have earned the right to complain about wasting money on ventures that are pet projects of NOBAMA
Still loving the hypocrisy. You don't think there are "pet projects" in the defense budget? You don't think there is spending for the sake of spending. Projects the military doesn't even want?

Why are you complaining about pennies being tossed in the trash and not complaining when rolls of $100 bills are being used as firewood?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 05:26 PM   #50
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

So folks. Why is it a problem that some energy research fails, but not that some military research fails?

Like I said, almost all R&D is a "failure" on some level, ranging between outright failure and learning what not to do.

Why the double standard?

(trick question: we all know the reason for the double standard, it has to do with who you can blame for the failure)
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:40 AM.


Denver Broncos