http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...pons-programs/

Lets get rid of our nukes first, then the ability to defend what's let of our country...

 

Krohbar,

While I'm not a huge fan of military cut backs, this statement is the key:

To fight new threats from insurgents, Gates is proposing more funding for special forces and other tools.

Our current military programs are deadset on a cold war-style confrontation. This leaves us largely inept to fight terrorist cells. Plus, we need to cut spending anyhow!

 

What are you going to do about China, and Russia, who is getting real friendly with Venezuela now? They aren't going to be fighting with IEDs. Our fighter fleet is aging. Let's just keep those 25 yr old F15s and F16s pieced together for another 20 years. Think he'll let the JSF continue either?

 

Obama & Co. are pulling the pants of Uncle Sam down in front of the entire world.

 

We have about 180 Raptor jets already. I don't like defense cuts at all but I don't see us needing many more Raptors when 1 can already screw the enemy up.

I would like to see more $$$ into border patrol.

 

So, I guess all those working in defense now can go gets jobs at Wal-Mart too. Part of the 2 million jobs Obama is going to "create".

Firefox browser still doesn't like "Obama".

 

As stated by another poster, we have raptor fighter jets. We won't be doing anything about China and Russia if our economy is in the tank and we can't afford to mobilize our military to begin with.

Also, your post assumes that we have to do something about China and Russia.
I would urge you to cross-reference what you hear in our filtered news with other media outlets. The Russia-Georgia situation is a perfect example of the media selling us a half-baked version of the conflict and playing off of our cold war fears.

 

Russia selling weapons systems to Venezuela is a little different than Russia playing around in Georgia. Russia is slowly drifting back hard line, and by the time we realize it, it will be too late.

 

Krohbar,

I really don't understand where/how this becomes a controversy. We were selling weapons to both the Iranians and the Iraqis, helping them slaughter thousands of each other. At what point do we get to point the finger at other countries who sell weapon systems to countries we happen not to like and claim they're "walking the hard line?"

And my point about Georgia was this: Russia was not playing around in Georgia. Georgia attacked and killed civilians in South Ossetia (most people who watch the news never got the chance to hear about this) and the Russians expelled them. But it was sold to us as a Russian invasion.

 

Well, the Obama administration will (supposedly) create jobs in a renewable energy industry. This is a far cry from Wal Mart jobs. Plus, with our automotive companies having to compete with Japanese counterparts who are subsidized by their governments and can take losses due to R&D that won't yield positive returns for over a decade, we could use some govt. help in transitioning to more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.

 

China won't try anything against the US anytime soon. We owe them over a trillion dollars, and if they attack us, they no get paid. We're their number one buyer of all their crap, so going to war with us will destroy their economy.

And Russia isn't even a world power anymore. They may have nuclear weapons, but they are basically a 2nd world country now, who needs as many friends as they can get in this day and age.

The only country we need to worry about is N. Korea. Their supposed "satellite launch" didn't end the world yesterday, but could have been ICBM test launch to test their own capabilities.

 

I'll throw in a quick opinion here-
I'm all for National Defense. It is what I do (I'm an Army guy)... but I'm not too keen on the pricetag and technical complexity of a lot of our new equipment when simplier, cheaper to operate, easier to master and maintain, and a Whole Lot of Them will get the job done.
As for our Air Force - when in the last fifty years has our Air Force ever failed to gain and maintain air supremacy so fast and so firm that it made our enemies head spin.
Further - when in the last twenty-five years has our Pilots on their F-15s, F-16s (and the Navy with their F-18s) not flown the pants of any competitor they have ever come up against, either in real war or war-games - even against other countries with superior aircraft? Our guys and our planes are the best because they have time and money to train. More money spent on new expensive planes when the old design still works fine today and ten more years from now means is less money to spend on our pilots staying good at what they do. Look at any other country with overly complex aircraft, and the pittly amount of hours their pilots get to fly them. We do Not want to paint ourselves into that corner.
I have no problem saying 'Buh Bye to the Raptor'. It is a really neet plane, but I'd rather have six more C-17s or a dozen A-10s for the same price.

My 'Grunt' Two Cents. Ponder it as you see fit.

Now... I'd rather talk about Trucks.

 

The F-22 project was being watched very closely by me. The Air Force is obligated to buy 175 of them, but after that it looks like it's over.

This is absolutley crazy when the AF needs to replace the old F-15s and F-16s. They need approximately 600-700 to do that purchased over several years.

Couple that with a lot of our allies like Israel who are chomping at the bit to purchase "watered-down" versions of the F-22, and we are crazy to not be continuing the program. At 130 million a pop, it would turn into a money-maker for Lockheed-Martin and the taxpayer.

Further proof that Obama and Gates will be happy to take our military the way of Carter. What Bush saw in gates, I have no idea. They appear to be weakening the military.

 

We need KC 135's or a replacement for them worse than anything. Some of these birds are 50 years old!

 

For the moment, I am going to skip the main thrust of this thread even though I have some pretty strong personal opinions about some of the things that have been posted.

I will, though, pass on some close and personal experience regarding Russia, or any other developed country, providing weapons and weapons systems to developing countries such as the reference here to Venezuela.

I was posted to Lima, Peru by AB Volvo from 1976-1978 when that country was governed by a military dictatorship. The government portrayed themselves as communists (lower case intentional as it was really rather more socialist). They nationalized all of the major industries in the country and instituted a land reform program that took all the farms/ranches etc. away from the rich and the middle class and gave it to the peasants who worked on them.

Basically, they ruined an admittedly backward and poor country that in spite of these shortcomings was self sufficient and actually exported millions of dollars worth of items such as copper and fishmeal.

Back on message, their actions pleased the Russians no end and they entered into a wide range of programs to convert the Peruvian military from their former close relationship with the US to a complete reliance on Russia as a source of training and equipment.

This resulted in their Army, Air Force and Navy being almost completely re-equipped with relatively modern Russian equipment and retiring the older but very reliable and simple ex WWII US equipment that had served them perfectly well since about 1950 or so.

This started about 3 years before I arrived in Lima and ended about the time I left.

My office window overlooked the Pan American Highway which was a major transit artery for various military columns moving from North to South in the country and vice versa. I cannot tell you how many times I saw Russian Tank Transporters broken down on just the short stretch I could watch and then watching the soldiers trying to get the tanks to run on their own to get them off the highway. Not even to speak of the normal Army transport trucks and Jeeps that broke down.

The Air Force had been doing just fine with surplus US WWII prop planes of various types and these were replaced with 60's era Soviet jets. The number of plane crashes just in the area of Lima, a major Air Force hub, in the two years I was there was probably 50 times the number of crashes that would occur in a developed country during a similar time period.

In the last year I was there, Volvo won huge contracts to replace the majority of the Soviet transport vehicle fleet. Probably didn't hurt that Sweden was then and is now perceived as a Socialist country so they could sell it to the population that way.

Point of the post is that prior to the coming of Hugo, Venezuela relied also on the US for military training and equipment and that equipment was chosen to take into account the ability of the Armed Forces personnel to be able to use and maintain the equipment.

I would suspect the current Russian government will make the same mistake and listen to Hugo and his generals and give them at worst "90's generation" weapons systems. Systems that within a short period of time will become inoperative due to their complexity in a country that is not equipped to deal with that complexity. Not even to speak of spare parts, not a strong suit in most Russian weapons deals.

Be careful what you ask for, Hugo.

Just some thoughts.

Bill