[Unknown Target]

While I agree wtih your sentiment, I want to play devil's advocate for a moment:  Cut two Raptors to continue subsidising Planned Parenthood.  Cut two Raptors to save NPR.  Cut two Raptors to save a few farm subsidies.  Cut two Raptors to build a bridge to another abandoned island in Alaska.  Eventually, you have no Raptors left, and the Russian Federation leverages its oil revenues to field a more advanced air force than the United States.

Oh no, another nation could obtain an advantage over a very obviously finite resource that is rapidly dwindling. How about cut two Raptors to build 24 5-turbine wind farms?
Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080601145614AA40uNa (best I could find regarding the price of wind turbines on short notice)

[Spicious]

Ah.  I just remembered it coming up in the NPR thread a few weeks back as well, so I wanted to point out that cutting Raptors isn't a viable solution to every budget problem.

The far more pressing problem is that cutting Raptors is never considered at all for any budget problems.

[Unknown Target]

I personally think there should be a decision made between the F-22 or the F-35. Either fund the F-35 through to the end of it's program and manufacturing of all three variants, or mothball it and use the funds to build more F-22s/make them more useful for multirole duties.

And once again, I'd like to say that the argument that the US will be at a disadvantage for "holding oil producing territories" is near sighted. Oil will run out, planning for some sort of global end game where you use oil fighting for the little oil that's left is stupid. The money is better spent on internal improvements that negate the need for oil.

[MR_T3D]

how about 5% national sales tax, and cut no raptors?

that, if Congress's u-try-to-balance-the-budget thing is to believed, will do A LOT MORE than this, and with minor increases for 6-figure incomes, would actually balance the budget.

[Unknown Target]

Each state already has a sales tax. Adding a 5% national tax when many states are already facing major budget shortfalls would probably not help very much, if it didn't end up making things worse. In addition it would only add to growing federal power at a time when it's possible to make an argument that excessive federal power is the problem.

I say keep Congress the way it is and change it's purpose to doing the only thing it's useful for at this point; acting as a national mosh pit for fundamentalists and people without fundamentals to manufacture and debate contentious moral issues.

[BlueFlames]

And once again, I'd like to say that the argument that the US will be at a disadvantage for "holding oil producing territories" is near sighted. Oil will run out, planning for some sort of global end game where you use oil fighting for the little oil that's left is stupid. The money is better spent on internal improvements that negate the need for oil.

Where did this come from in the first place?  The only mention of oil that I made was to say that that's how Russia is making a fat pile of cash right now.  Said fat pile of cash, for the last few years has been getting invested in upgrading their military, including updating their ballistic missile fleet, rebuilding their command structure, and pertinent to this conversation, developing fifth-generation fighter aircraft.

My overall point was that, while we are overspending on defense, you can't cut two fighters here and two fighters there forever.  Cut back?  Yes, but do so with the prudence and foresight to not leave the nation open to attack.

The far more pressing problem is that cutting Raptors is never considered at all for any budget problems.

Actually, in the bill that funded the military for fiscal 2010, there was no funding for Raptor production.  Once the last of the 187 already paid-for are finished, that's it for Raptor production, barring a major air war with a competitive air force.  The Pentagon lost its immunity to spending cuts in 2009, and they know it.  It's why Secretary Gates has been proposing cuts to the Defense budget.  Unfortunately, he's the only one who will propose them, and being that it's his department, he's not cutting tremendously deeply, but it's something at least.

[Unknown Target]

Where did this come from in the first place?  The only mention of oil that I made was to say that that's how Russia is making a fat pile of cash right now.  Said fat pile of cash, for the last few years has been getting invested in upgrading their military, including updating their ballistic missile fleet, rebuilding their command structure, and pertinent to this conversation, developing fifth-generation fighter aircraft.

I originally read your post as "oil fields" not "oil revenues to field". Apologies. That being said, so what? What goal would Russia hope to attain by attacking us? The only reasonable reason they would want to assault the United States is to obtain food or water, as we have relatively little oil compared to a much more politically pariahed country such as Venezuela, and we are not yet in a food or water crisis - which at that point we'll probably not be using oil anymore in developed nations, either because we've moved off it or collapsed because we didn't move off it fast enough.

Anything else would be foolish - the US is a major advanced manufacturing hub. In a war those are the sorts of things you'd destroy. So what would be gained from conquering? Not only that, but any conquering forces would be faced with 300 million angry, armed Americans. An attacker would be faced with 50 different Iraqs.

My overall point was that, while we are overspending on defense, you can't cut two fighters here and two fighters their forever.  Cut back?  Yes, but do so with the prudence and foresight to not leave the nation open to attack.

Yes, you can cut two fighters here and two fighters there forever - until you reach the end of the fighters. Why not just skip the middle man and cut them all? Or cut the JSF program - a money sink. I bet you you could fund an F-22 conversion into a multirole aircraft and a naval variant, with the resources saved from the JSF program. And in the meantime you can ramp up F-22 production, bringing the overall cost down, so you can deploy it in more areas, especially overseas, while the Navy makes do with it's perfectly serviceable F/A-18F models, which are relatively recent and very much upgraded and "modern" by current air war standards.

[Kosh]

While I agree wtih your sentiment, I want to play devil's advocate for a moment:  Cut two Raptors to continue subsidising Planned Parenthood.  Cut two Raptors to save NPR.  Cut two Raptors to save a few farm subsidies.  Cut two Raptors to build a bridge to another abandoned island in Alaska.  Eventually, you have no Raptors left, and the Russian Federation leverages its oil revenues to field a more advanced air force than the United States.

Oh no, another nation could obtain an advantage over a very obviously finite resource that is rapidly dwindling. How about cut two Raptors to build 24 5-turbine wind farms?
Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080601145614AA40uNa (best I could find regarding the price of wind turbines on short notice)

Because wind turbines are hugely subsized and overrated.

I bet you you could fund an F-22 conversion into a multirole aircraft and a naval variant, with the resources saved from the JSF program. And in the meantime you can ramp up F-22 production, bringing the overall cost down, so you can deploy it in more areas, especially overseas,

The problem is there are fundemental design constraints that really prevents it from being an effective multirole fighter, whereas the JSF was designed from the ground up for this purpose. Besides, the JSF program isn't nearly the money sink the F-22 is.

You know I wonder if aircraft production was automated in an assembly line fashion the costs for building airplanes of all kinds would go down.

[Unknown Target]

Oh no, another nation could obtain an advantage over a very obviously finite resource that is rapidly dwindling. How about cut two Raptors to build 24 5-turbine wind farms?
Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080601145614AA40uNa (best I could find regarding the price of wind turbines on short notice)

Because wind turbines are hugely subsized and overrated.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

I bet you you could fund an F-22 conversion into a multirole aircraft and a naval variant, with the resources saved from the JSF program. And in the meantime you can ramp up F-22 production, bringing the overall cost down, so you can deploy it in more areas, especially overseas,

The problem is there are fundemental design constraints that really prevents it from being an effective multirole fighter, whereas the JSF was designed from the ground up for this purpose. Besides, the JSF program isn't nearly the money sink the F-22 is.

The F-22 is a world class, successful fighter program. The JSF has blown past all of it's operating budgets and continues to rise with no end in sight. Either limit the program so as to actually get something useful out of it, or shut it down and redirect it. I would say that the real reason it's being kept alive is because it keeps jobs and money flowing into the districts that are involved with it. It's yet another runaway weapons program that's been called out again and again yet it still keeps getting money. If you want to keep both, then cancel other projects - but for sanity's sake at least make it possible to actually pay for at least some of the programs running right now. If we can't afford it I doubt we actually need it - a stance that's backed up by the numerous debates on these very issues.

You know I wonder if aircraft production was automated in an assembly line fashion the costs for building airplanes of all kinds would go down.

You know, I've actually done a lot of thought towards this. One of my goals is to decrease aviation costs to help make it more accessible; one of the ideas I came up with was a factory that produced standard welded-tube box truss frames that could accommodate a range of layout configurations. The builder or design houses would purchase these frames and design around them, either choosing to use foam cut to shape and covered in fiberglass or to use wooden framers attached to the structure (or something else), with the goal of changing the aircraft's actual look and attributes. In this way you could achieve mass-production benefits for what would still most likely be a relatively small market.

[Scotty]

EDIT:  [REDACTED] because it contributed nothing to discussion.

[blackhole]

The fundamental problem is education. People make logical errors because they have not been taught to avoid them, and then you get the tea-party. Fix education, and you fix the system, simply because said people who are now properly educated will figure out a way to fix the system in a way you never thought of. Proper education results in a generation that is smarter then the previous one. That's how progress happens.

[Grizzly]

Where did this come from in the first place?  The only mention of oil that I made was to say that that's how Russia is making a fat pile of cash right now.  Said fat pile of cash, for the last few years has been getting invested in upgrading their military, including updating their ballistic missile fleet, rebuilding their command structure, and pertinent to this conversation, developing fifth-generation fighter aircraft.

I originally read your post as "oil fields" not "oil revenues to field". Apologies. That being said, so what? What goal would Russia hope to attain by attacking us? The only reasonable reason they would want to assault the United States is to obtain food or water, as we have relatively little oil compared to a much more politically pariahed country such as Venezuela, and we are not yet in a food or water crisis - which at that point we'll probably not be using oil anymore in developed nations, either because we've moved off it or collapsed because we didn't move off it fast enough.

Anything else would be foolish - the US is a major advanced manufacturing hub. In a war those are the sorts of things you'd destroy. So what would be gained from conquering? Not only that, but any conquering forces would be faced with 300 million angry, armed Americans. An attacker would be faced with 50 different Iraqs.

My overall point was that, while we are overspending on defense, you can't cut two fighters here and two fighters their forever.  Cut back?  Yes, but do so with the prudence and foresight to not leave the nation open to attack.

Yes, you can cut two fighters here and two fighters there forever - until you reach the end of the fighters. Why not just skip the middle man and cut them all? Or cut the JSF program - a money sink. I bet you you could fund an F-22 conversion into a multirole aircraft and a naval variant, with the resources saved from the JSF program. And in the meantime you can ramp up F-22 production, bringing the overall cost down, so you can deploy it in more areas, especially overseas, while the Navy makes do with it's perfectly serviceable F/A-18F models, which are relatively recent and very much upgraded and "modern" by current air war standards.

Not to mention that any nation that has the ability to maintain a sizable and up to date air force is also on semi-friendly terms with the US. The Opponents fought in today's wars either lack an airforce or have an vastly outdated and outnumbered airforce.

[SpardaSon21]

Not to mention that any nation that has the ability to maintain a sizable and up to date air force is also on semi-friendly terms with the US. The Opponents fought in today's wars either lack an airforce or have an vastly outdated and outnumbered airforce.

That may not always be true, though, especially if Russia or China gets more hostile towards us.

[achtung]

Why on Earth would Russia or China start a war with the United States in the foreseeable future? Russia may be on the up-and-coming, but they are still a decent way from being a challenge, and even further away from having a realistic reason for a war. China is perfectly satisfied with their economic position, they are more interested in money, and militarily, Taiwan.

[Grizzly]

Starting a war with the US is so costly that it is not worth any benefits. You also end up with a lot of geurillia's...

[The E]

Starting a giant, WW2-style landgrab isn't profitable, period.

[redsniper]

The fundamental problem is education. People make logical errors because they have not been taught to avoid them, and then you get the tea-party. Fix education, and you fix the system, simply because said people who are now properly educated will figure out a way to fix the system in a way you never thought of. Proper education results in a generation that is smarter then the previous one. That's how progress happens.

Yeah but, those in power don't want progress, they want money.

[BlueFlames]

Why on Earth would Russia or China start a war with the United States in the foreseeable future? Russia may be on the up-and-coming, but they are still a decent way from being a challenge, and even further away from having a realistic reason for a war. China is perfectly satisfied with their economic position, they are more interested in money, and militarily, Taiwan.

Just a reminder of recent history:  South Ossetia.

There's good reason to believe that Russia wants to reclaim a few of the former Soviet republics and stop its direct neighbors from joining NATO.  NATO is willing to lock horns with Russia over such issues, so its not entirely beyond the realm of reality to see Russian and US forces fighting over territory in Europe.  Then you get into the tangle of allegiances in the Middle East, which is to say that every nation in the Middle East that Russia maintains positive relations with is one that nobody in the United States would be too sad to see topple.

Additionally, China has quite a wide variety of border disputes with nations that the United States recognizes as sovereign and independent of China.  I doubt very highly that the US Pacific Fleet would be allowed to stand idly by, should China get it in its head to stomp all over Taiwan.  Then there's the hornet's nest that is Korea that could indirectly draw the United States and China into direct confrontation.

It's kind of funny how the ideological component of the Cold War more or less ended, but the material and territorial disputes remain.  To say that there's no chance of a conflict between the United States and one of the regional powers of the eastern hemisphere is naive.

The trick with defense spending, therefore, is to reduce it to a reasonable level, without sacrificing the conventional deterrent effect of the United States' armed forces.  Completely wiping out our top-of-the-line fighters isn't the way to do that.  With the F-22 in the sky, Russia and/or China would have to enter into a conflict with the United States knowing that they are technologically incapable of gaining air superiority.  When the F-35 comes online, they would have to engage in conflict knowing that their ground assets will be vulnerable to attacks against which they would be unable to retaliate.

My suggestion would be to have a small cadre of these aircraft in reserve, ready to deploy as soon as a conflict erupts, while keeping on standby the ability to produce more, quickly, as necessary.  Is 187 F-22's a small cadre?  No, 187 is too much for a peacetime force or even a force engaged in the conflicts in which we're currently engaged.  We overdid it, but they're already paid for.  We spent the $300 million-a-piece to build those 187, so we either pay to maintain and use them, or we pay even more to mothball and decommission them.  It's pricey to keep technology out of the hands of others.

It's worth looking at what it takes to decommission an F-14, at this juncture.  Iran has a stable of F-14's, all rendered inoperable by the removal of or lack of maintanence to key components that Iran lacks the technology to replicate or replace.  In light of this, when an F-14 is in need of decommissioning, it needs to be kept secure from its last flight until the time it's scrapped.  Every electronic component needs to be accounted for, prior to scrapping.  Those components then need to be catalogued and their destruction confirmed or securely stored as spares for the remaining F-14's still in service.

All that, because we don't want one country that we don't particularly like getting their hands on F-14 parts.  With the F-22 and F-35, it's another story entirely, because we don't want any countries getting their hands on the technology used in those planes.  There's an export ban on these aircraft, so that our allies cannot yet buy them, nevermind our enemies.  Up and scrapping them is not as cheap a proposition as you may believe.

Incidentally, how the hell did I wind up on the right wing of this discussion?  I don't think I've ever found myself saying that someone wants to cut defense spending too much....

[Grizzly]

The fundamental problem is education. People make logical errors because they have not been taught to avoid them, and then you get the tea-party. Fix education, and you fix the system, simply because said people who are now properly educated will figure out a way to fix the system in a way you never thought of. Proper education results in a generation that is smarter then the previous one. That's how progress happens.

Yeah but, those in power don't want progress, they want money.

They'd probably also want a good pension... And good healthcare once they are there. Doesn't work without educated people.

There's an export ban on these aircraft, so that our allies cannot yet buy them

Not that we want to .

Oh wait.  (Look at how much the Dutch Goverment spends on the F-35...)

[Drogoth]

There's an export ban on these aircraft, so that our allies cannot yet buy them

Not that we want to .

Oh wait.  (Look at how much the Dutch Goverment spends on the F-35...)

Yeah that export ban is a load of bull, Canadian government is buying quite a few. Way more then we need for that matter. Stupid amount of wasted money IMHO