Fuck you and your heartless horrific "budget" Trumpanzee

[rubato]

LJ, please explain to me why the US military could possibly need 2,457 F-35 jets?

Welfare for the rich aka "Weaponized Keynsianism" (Barney Frank).


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I wanted to do some actual research on the issue before replying... (You may want to try that sometime rube; it would make a refreshing change for you.)

Actually I think the number could be cut somewhat, but there is no question that our readiness is being hampered by the aging of our air fleet (particularly our F-16s and FA-18 Hornets, many of which are nearly 30 years old and have badly exceeded their intended 8000 hours of flight time) and we need a new generation of fighter plane..

It's also essential with the Russians and the Chinese emerging militarily around the globe that we maintain our technical air advantage. The F-35 is a fairly remarkable plane that has the versatility to replace not just the F-16s and F-18s but a number of other aging planes in our air fleet as well (The Brits are also buying a number of them):

The F-35 comes in 3 flavors and each is replacing different aircraft.
- F-35A is the USAF version that will replace the F-16 and A-10
- F-35B is the short takeoff/vertical landing version and replaces the Marines AV-8 Harrier
- F-35C is the Navy version and will replace F-18C Hornets and later the F-18 Super Hornets

Meanwhile the UK is getting the F-35B to replace their Harriers.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/feat ... 212-3.html

I went to this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... y_aircraft

and used the chart there to add up the total number of aircraft to be replaced, and I came up with 2203...(of course that doesn't show what percentage are down for maintenance)

Why we would need to replace older less capable planes with a larger number of brand new far more capable planes is not apparent to me, so it seems we could knock that 2,457 down to at least 2200. (Perhaps a little less if there is sufficient funding in place to improve maintenance time and keep a higher percentage of aircraft active than is currently the case.)

And if Trump can actually get the price down on the planes (rather than just claim to do so) then I'll say good for him. (Same thing with any other military contract that he can negociate a lower price on.)

The fact of the matter is that in recent years our failure to take appropriate military action (such as in Syria) and our overall failure to project US power around the globe effectively has created numerous vacuums that hostile powers (principally Russia and China but also Iran) have proven themselves only too happy to fill.

Years of meat axe cuts to the defense budget combined with a doctrine of US power driven by short-sighted timidity bordering on paralysis have created this situation.

Now if one is a right-wing isolationist or a left-wing pacifist, and none of that matters and you don't see the critical relationship between this state of affairs and US national security, then I guess you could say, "Well we just don't need so many planes, ships, tanks or troops"...

Maybe a person like that would think we don't need a blue water navy at all, and we could easily get by with a 1000 planes or less just to protect incursions into US air space, and maybe we only need a couple of hundred thousand troops...

But if a person is coming from that sort of world view, then we don't really even have a basis for discussion, because that kind of philosophy is so completely alien and divorced from what I believe the reality is that we don't even have a starting point for debate.


ETA:

In reading through this again, I have to say that I feel really good about this post...

I have had to spend so much time criticizing and condemning a nominal Republican President, and taking to task many of my fellow Republicans (especially on The Hill) for things they have said or not said, done or not done, for so long now, sometimes I become terrified I may be starting to sound almost like rubato...



It was really nice to be able to post something that allowed me to get back in touch with my Reagan Republican roots, a post that will probably not be cheered by many liberals...

I'm always much more comfortable disagreeing with Liberals than agreeing with them...

[dales]

I wanted to do some actual research on the issue before replying... (You may want to try that sometime rube; it would make a refreshing change for you.)

Yes, but not nearly as entertaining for the rest of us.

[RayThom]

All things considered -- it appears the Russian military aircraft are not faring much better than our US fleet. If I am to believe what I read about the Russian economy it is in a state of flux and less likely to be able to replace their aging fleet anytime soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... y_aircraft

If push comes to shove -- and as it stands at this time -- it appears the ball is in our court. Of course, all it takes is one pesky ICBM and all bets are off.

[Lord Jim]

As I posted elsewhere. To Libertarians, Ayn Randians*, and many Republicans taxing one group to give the money to someone else is morally wrong no matter what the money is used for and no matter what the practical result.

Thanks for pointing that out to me rube...

I've had absolutely nothing to say about the Radical Randians, and would be completely unaware of their philosophical views were it not for what I have read in your posts...

I have no problem characterizing the Muvaney-type point of view as very confused and convoluted moral thinking at best. It isn't conservative, and it certainly isn't Christian...


A modern conservative approach to something like meals on wheels or school meals for poor children would be to look at these programs and see if there were ways to administer them more efficiently...

If, for an example, analysis of one of these programs revealed that it was costing the government 30 or 35 dollars per meal provided, then certainly it would make sense to see if there was a way get that cost down, (negociating better deals with suppliers, finding distribution and administrative efficiencies, etc.) because that would be a fairly unreasonable and inefficient cost level and would not be good stewardship of public funds.

*Like Allen Greenspan.

That must make for some interesting dinner conversation between him and his commie-symp wife...

[BoSoxGal]

I'm for a reasonable investment in national defense that is proportional to the threats we face from our enemies.

I believe that we have consistently spent far more than necessary to be up to the challenge of defending a nation bordered only by allies and with vast oceans separating it from hostile forces.

It is the military industrial complex about which Eisenhower warned us, and the corruption of money in politics.



At some point, if we refuse to feed our poor and elderly, if we turn our backs to the arts, if we allow our fellow citizens to die rather than provide them healthcare - what exactly are we defending?

[rubato]

As I posted elsewhere. To Libertarians, Ayn Randians*, and many Republicans taxing one group to give the money to someone else is morally wrong no matter what the money is used for and no matter what the practical result.

Thanks for pointing that out to me rube...

I've had absolutely nothing to say about the Radical Randians, and would be completely unaware of their philosophical views were it not for what I have read in your posts...

I have no problem characterizing the Muvaney-type point of view as very confused and convoluted moral thinking at best. It isn't conservative, and it certainly isn't Christian...


A modern conservative approach to something like meals on wheels or school meals for poor children would be to look at these programs and see if there were ways to administer them more efficiently...

If, for an example, analysis of one of these programs revealed that it was costing the government 30 or 35 dollars per meal provided, then certainly it would make sense to see if there was a way get that cost down, (negociating better deals with suppliers, finding distribution and administrative efficiencies, etc.) because that would be a fairly unreasonable and inefficient cost level and would not be good stewardship of public funds.

*Like Allen Greenspan.

That must make for for some interesting dinner conversation between him and his commie-symp wife...

The specifics of the AHCA prove that those are the principals of nearly every Republican in Congress.

A modern conservative approach to something like meals on wheels or school meals for poor children would be to look at these programs and see if there were ways to administer them more efficiently...

What you fantasize as a "modern conservative" is a conservative Democrat or practical Liberal.

Actual conservatives all want to eliminate 'meals on wheels', women's healthcare (Planned Parenthood) and every other program which costs tax money, helps the poor minorities or women, and does not enrich them.


yrs,
rubato

[dales]

[Bicycle Bill]

The F-35 comes in 3 flavors and each is replacing different aircraft.
- F-35A is the USAF version that will replace the F-16 and A-10
- F-35B is the short takeoff/vertical landing version and replaces the Marines AV-8 Harrier
- F-35C is the Navy version and will replace F-18C Hornets and later the F-18 Super Hornets

Meanwhile the UK is getting the F-35B to replace their Harriers.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/feat ... 212-3.html

Sorry, LJ — I have been up close at the Hardwood Range in western Wisconsin watching the A-10s going through their paces, and there ain't no way you're going to convince me that the F-35 is going to be able to replace the venerable Warthog when it comes to tank-busting or close-in ground support.

-"BB"-

[Lord Jim]

What you fantasize as a "modern conservative" is a conservative Democrat or practical Liberal.

LOL

The guy accuses me of fantasizing, and then in the same sentence talks about "conservative Democrats"...

The closest thing there has been to a conservative Democrat in recent years was Joe Lieberman, and they drove him out too...

The Scoop Jackson and Blue Dog Democrats have gone the way of the Dodo Bird...

[Lord Jim]

a nation bordered only by allies and with vast oceans separating it from hostile forces.

A lot of people felt that way in the 1930s too...

It didn't end well...

We've seen where the "Fortress America" defense approach leads...

And we've also seen the results of a global, forward leaning, robust defense approach...

Decades of deterring a third major war, and millions of people saved from (and millions more later liberated from...without firing a shot...) the yoke of Soviet tyranny...

Today we face existing, emerging, and resurgent threats of a wide variety all over the globe. If we fail to show resolve and demonstrate that we understand that American defense begins well beyond our borders and depends both on a sturdy global military presence and a network of strong alliances, we can fully expect the power vacuums we leave to be filled by predatory states that wish neither us nor any other democratic country well.

This is not theoretical; it's already been happening.

Diplomacy is also important, but in the past few years we've seen the "results" that diplomacy that is not backed up by a credible military posture yields.

I'll admit that even if we do start spending the money needed to restore an effective US international military presence the short term prospects for improved security will remain bleak. This is because of the leadership problem at the top. Replacing a President Dolittle with a President Know-nothing certainly hasn't helped the situation.

But we've got to make a start.

[rubato]

Lets hope its better than the Harrier. Best known for its ability to get rid of excess pilots as quickly as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_H ... ily_losses


yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Current technology has not been without substantial issues during and after their development. The F-16 was notorious for problems in its fly-by-wire systems. The venerable F-14 was a maintenance nightmare, requiring nearly 50 maintenance hours per flight hour. The F-4 was constructed without an internal cannon which plagued the aircraft during the Vietnam War. All warplanes have been hampered by failing to meet expectations, however, even with their problems and limitations, each aircraft has had a niche role or specialization that has kept the grounding of one model from creating service-wide disruptions.

It is difficult to imagine this will remain the case when the JSF begins to replace the existing military aircraft. Every aspect of this project – from its behemoth price tag to its goals and construction processes – will change the game by merit of its sheer scale and inventiveness, and with nearly 2,500 planes ordered by the US military alone the F-35 will become the new workhorse for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines.

With seemingly no end in sight to the program’s flaws and shortcomings, the belief that this leviathan of a public expenditure will become a mainstay in American defense should leave most armchair generals in a cold sweat.

[Burning Petard]

"I'd wager that many who pulled the lever for Drumph receive some type of assistance from these very programs facing cutbacks or elimination."

Many of them 'know' Obamacare is a horrible Anti-American failure, while they are actually enrolled and using it--'But that's just my medical coverage that I really need, it's not Obamacare and Trump said he would only make it better.'

And yes, Ayn Rand is the theology of the new GOP power wing.

snailgate

[rubato]

None of them were as bad as the Harrier. One of the worst planes for killing pilots in the 20th century.


yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

What you fantasize as a "modern conservative" is a conservative Democrat or practical Liberal.

LOL

The guy accuses me of fantasizing, and then in the same sentence talks about "conservative Democrats"...

The closest thing there has been to a conservative Democrat in recent years was Joe Lieberman, and they drove him out too...

The Scoop Jackson and Blue Dog Democrats have gone the way of the Dodo Bird...

Hardly. The entire party has moved right since Bill Clinton. HRC took a lot of smack from the left wing of the party for being too conservative. The moderate socially minded republican is the true dinosaur. John Chafee and Jim Jefford are both dead, and no one is taking their place.

[Big RR]

I have to agree with Guin, Jim; no liberal would have signed the welfare reform bill (As Clinton did0 or taken some of the pro government/anti-civil rights positions Obama did (just to start). We haven't had a left leaning democrat in the white house since LBJ, and there has been a big shift to the right to get to the middle (which was the moderate right range only a couple of decades ago).

Edited to correct typo

[oldr_n_wsr]

How can you gloat over the likely evisceration of the social safety net?!

You mistake my sarcasm for gloating.
I was merely commenting on when someone goes to make a deal, your opening bid is much larger than what you really want. This way when the deal is finally settled you get what you expected, and your "opponent" thinks he got a good deal too.

You may think you are impervious oldr, but I assure you, you are not. There are countless ways your best laid plans could blow up in your face.

I never thought I was impervious, nor do I do now.
My position has alway been to keep gov out of as much as possible, including health plans.

Remind me to laugh when that happens.

You have become a very bitter person.
I really have prayed for you , your well being and your health.
and will continue to do so.

[Lord Jim]

I have to agree with BSG, Jim;

I assume you mean Guin, Big RR...

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran (and won a plurality) as a centrist. This made good sense, since liberal Democratic Presidential candidates (Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale) hadn't done real well...

Then for the first two years of his Presidency, he tried to govern like a liberal (tax increases, a big government healthcare proposal, etc.) and proceeded to get his ass handed to him in the '94 midterm elections...

Being a bright (well, at least regarding politics) and pragmatic fellow, Clinton then tacked back to the center, and went on to have a fairly successful Presidency.

But let's look at the Democratic Party of more recent vintage:

In the last election cycle, in order to beat back a nomination challenge from a self-avowed Socialist, Hillary Clinton had to renounce (and even apologize for) the most important legislative accomplishments of those earlier Bill Clinton years ( like The Welfare Reform Act and The Crime Bill)

Even so, the Socialist still got over 43% of the Democratic primary and caucus vote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_o ... ries,_2016

(About the same percentage of the primary and caucus vote that Trump got on the GOP side to win the Republican nomination)

To put the 43% that Sanders got in further perspective, it's 18% higher than George McGovern got in winning the Democratic nomination in 1972:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrati ... ries,_1972

The fact is, the political "center" of the Democratic Party electorate today, is much further to the left than at anytime in modern history, including the year the party nominated George McGovern...

And this is largely reflected in the make-up of the Democratic congressional delegation...

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) was established in 1991 and is the largest membership organization within the Democratic Caucus.

...The CPC was created in 1991 by six members of the U.S. House, Ron Dellums, Lane Evans, Thomas Andrews, Peter DeFazio, Maxine Waters and Bernie Sanders. Sanders served as the first chairman of the CPC

...The Congressional Progressive Caucus is composed of a single senator, Bernie Sanders, and 74 representatives.

https://ballotpedia.org/Congressional_P ... ive_Caucus

So the left-wing CPC has gone from six members in the House in 1991 (When the Democrats had a huge majority of 270 seats) to 74 today (when the Democrats have 193 seats)

Now let's look at The Blue Dog Coalition:

The Blue Dog Coalition is often involved in searching for a compromise between liberal and conservative positions. The Coalition currently has 18 members in the House of Representatives.[9] Most of the Blue Dogs are a continuation of the socially conservative wing of the Democratic Party.[3] However, there is not any mention "in the official Blue Dog materials about social issues."[25] The coalition is fiscally conservative, but does not determine a platform for social issues. Among Blue Dog Democrats, "some are fiscally conservative and moderate or liberal on social issues, some are the reverse."

...Blue Dog numbers in the House were reduced from 54 members in 2008 to 26 members in 2010

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

And of course since 2005, the House Democrats have elected as their leader one of the most liberal members of that body, San Francisco's own Nancy Pelosi...

So, the conclusions one must draw from these numbers are inescapable...

At both the level of rank and file party supporters, and at the federal legislative level, the Democratic Party today is further to the left then it has been in many, many, many years...

And there is every indication that this is only going to become more so...

The party may have moved to the center during the Clinton years, but it has taken a huge left turn over the course of the past decade...

John Chafee and Jim Jefford are both dead, and no one is taking their place.

I will certainly stipulate that the "Liberal Republican" (much like the "Conservative Democrat") has pretty much disappeared from the political landscape...

To those two that you mention, I could add a few more off the top of my head:

Jacob Javitz, Chuck Percy, Lowell Wicker, Richard Schweiker, Ed Brooke...

Personally, I lament the passing of both of these groups...

I think that the country has definitely suffered (and the parties themselves, whether they realize it or not) from the ever-growing lack of ideological diversity on both sides...

The ideological narrowing on both sides of the aisle is one of the two major factors (along with the fact that the Congressional members of the two parties rarely get to know each other on a personal level as they did in years past...a topic I have posted about here in detail) that has contributed to dysfunctional legislative system we have today.

[BoSoxGal]

How can you gloat over the likely evisceration of the social safety net?!

You mistake my sarcasm for gloating.
I was merely commenting on when someone goes to make a deal, your opening bid is much larger than what you really want. This way when the deal is finally settled you get what you expected, and your "opponent" thinks he got a good deal too.

You may think you are impervious oldr, but I assure you, you are not. There are countless ways your best laid plans could blow up in your face.

I never thought I was impervious, nor do I do now.
My position has alway been to keep gov out of as much as possible, including health plans.

Remind me to laugh when that happens.

You have become a very bitter person.
I really have prayed for you , your well being and your health.
and will continue to do so.

I don't need your pointless thoughts & prayers, oldr - save them for someone who believes in fairy tales.

I need Medicaid, which you would happily see my life significantly shortened without.

If you think I'm bitter because I have no fucking sympathy for someone whose political philosophy essentially says my life doesn't matter, then fine, I'm bitter. And again, when life deals a blow to you or yours, don't expect me to feel any sympathy because yours is clearly limited to 'oh that's too bad BSG, but I don't want my taxes to go toward providing you or any other ACA-reliant folks with healthcare'.

Don't bother insulting me with a further response or denial- that IS what your political beliefs mean. Period.