“You don’t need hundreds of thousands of troops planning for the next war because nobody’s going to invade us, nobody’s going to attack us,” Paul said. “What I really want is [President Barack Obama] to downsize the foreign policy, because if you stay involved in 140 countries . . . stirring up trouble, and you downsize the military, you run into a problem. So, it’s our intervention that needs downsizing. But I certainly agree that in this day and age, we shouldn’t be building all these weapons.”
Hope his kid believes this, too.
It was fun watching neocon fucktards like McCain, Ollie, Bolton and their ilk get hard-ons in front of national teevee over these reductions. Definitely affected Viagra sales negatively.
Let me say this about that (defense spending), a subject with which I am familiar.
The Air Force just spent $1 billion on the A-10 Warthog in upgrading the aging airframe and expanding its lifetime by 15-20 years. The total unit R&D and production cost of the A-10 was $12 million. There is no better aircraft on the planet in providing close air support to our troops on the ground. None. It is also unparalleled in covering search and rescue (SAR) helicopters going into hostile territory to pick up a downed pilot or rescuing troops caught in a fierce firefight. The A-10s can loiter for a LONG time over a battlefield, as in hours. It’s relatively easy to fly and simple and cheap to fix. We have over 700 A-10s in the inventory.
Perfect, you might say. Not so fast. The A-10 is on the chopping block per the recent defense cutbacks announced by SecDef Hagel. Total savings to shut down the A-10 and retire it to the boneyard? $2 billion. That after a billion was just spent to give it another 15-20 years service.
On to the F-35, whose missions are supposed to be close air support, reconnaissance, and air defense (air-to-air fighter). Unit cost of the F-35, last time I looked, was $150 million to $200 million EACH, depending on the version bought by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Right now the cost of the program, just to buy the damn thing, is $400 billion, as Ron Paul noted. Total cost of the program over its projected lifetime of 50 years is $800 billion, which is a total wish trick. It’ll be way north of a trillion.
It gets worse. The F-35 is a horrible choice for close air support. It will have a very short loiter time, probably less than 30 minutes in most scenarios. And you can forget about it being used for SAR coverage. Won’t happen. We tried this multi-purpose bullshit with the now retired and extremely expensive F-111, and here we go again with the F-35, which is off-the-charts expensive.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is TYPICAL of your modern day Defense Department. Fuck protecting our ground troops with the best aircraft for the job. And on to more and more expensive toys for the generals and admirals.
SSS – I am in total agreement with your evaluation of the A-10 and the F-35. That is not the primary. purpose of the MIC (Military-Industrial Complex). The MIC’s purpose is to create jobs in as many Congressional districts as possible without regard to the necessity of the product, in other words spread the taxpayers “money” around. .
SSS, you overlook one tiny detail. The A10 spits out depleted uranium shells which vaporize on contact, enter the biosphere and cause all kinds of health problems for god knows how long. The A10 was designed to counter Soviet advantages in numbers of armored vehicles. Well the USSR is gone, and with it went any threat of invasion of Europe. Today the A10 is only useful in an offensive role.
I am all for retiring this dinosaur. Frankly, it it ought to be a war crime to even use it’s 30 mm cannon.
Perfect, you might say. Not so fast. The A-10 is on the chopping block per the recent defense cutbacks announced by SecDef Hagel. Total savings to shut down the A-10 and retire it to the boneyard? $2 billion. That after a billion was just spent to give it another 15-20 years service. -SSS
i worked on some military craft, the military planes flew much less hours than say a 737. They were well maintained and had far less landing and take off cycles even though many were built in 1960.
i think this cutting the A-10 is not about its age, which as you know is about flight cycles, IE reported hard landings etc, but about keeping the contractors building new planes.
Also, the boneyard, Davis-Monthan, IIRC, many are pretty much airworthy though the electronics are a bit outdated, but the airframes are functional.
Zara, you can mount a depleted round spitting cannon on a blimp.
What does that have to do with the warthog?
Anon, the A10 is a plane that is built around a cannon…one that shoots 30mm DU shells.
“SSS, you overlook one tiny detail. The A10 spits out depleted uranium shells …” —– Zara
So what? The uranium is DEPLETED …. meaning, it ain’t there. What’s the big deal?
It’s just like when SSS shoots depleted spermies …. crazy free sex with no consequences.
The A-10 was always my favorite american military craft, with the B52 running a close second.
Things that follow the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) doctrine are the most reliable, and will see the most mileage.
If your troops decry the retirement of a piece of equipment, you should probably listen to them. After all, its their lives on the line.
“The A10 spits out depleted uranium shells which vaporize on contact, enter the biosphere and cause all kinds of health problems for god knows how long. The A10 was designed to counter Soviet advantages in numbers of armored vehicles.”
—-Zara @ SSS
The only human health risks arising from the A-10’s depleted uranium 30mm ammo is the people in the target area, whether they are in a reinforced bunker, a tank, a trench, or an armored personnel carrier. And most will be dead. All the rest of this “contaminated area” outcry is bullshit. None of it has been confirmed by any credible science or research.
While the A-10 was indeed designed to counter the armored advantages of the Warsaw Pact, it is STILL THE BEST CLOSE AIR SUPPORT AIRCRAFT FOR ASYMETRICAL WARFARE. Do you know what that is, Zara? Look it up.
In addition, the pilot sits in what’s known as a “titanium bathtub” and is protected fully from small arms fire. The aircraft itself can take massive damage from ground fire, including IR SAMs that hit the engine, and STILL get back to base.
Let me tell you something, Zara. I strongly support weapons systems that help our soldiers and marines WIN and keep them safe. None of them have a vote on where they’re going and who they’re fighting. Right? So stop whinging about some false bullshit on depleted uranium. And you haven’t come up with jackshit to replace the A-10.
A damn slingshot would be more effective than an A-10.
SSS, what a crock of shit. Need I post pictures of deformed Iraqi babies from Basra and Fallujah? What part of “it gets into the soil” don’t you understand? What part of “it’s a fucking offensive weapon” don’t you understand. Fuck the marines and fuck the army. If they are doing anything but protecting United States territory from invasion then they deserve what they get and they can all kiss my ass; they volunteered for it so it’s their problem, not mine.
The A10 is a relic of the past and it just needs to grace one of your beautiful deserts until it is gathered up, turned to scrap and its’ parts are recreated into something that is useful for mankind.
PS, I’d cancel the F35 as well. We don’t need close air support. We haz guns. Yamamoto said so himself.
“A damn slingshot would be more effective than an A-10.”
—-Zara
You need to move on to a subject you know something about.
The guys getting shot at on the ground swear by the A10.
Just sayin….
SSS falls for the Z doppler. Ha!
SSS, our resident “military expert,” allow me to inform you of a factoid of which I am pretty sure you are ignorant about. Name the first aircraft to surround the pilot in a “titanium bathtub.” If you said, “Dumbass, it’s the A10,” you’d be wrong. It was the Japanese late-war, army uber-fighter the KI84, known in allied jargon as the “Frank.”
Maybe I should have worked for the CIA and educated you fucks rather than becoming an engineer, designing food plants and sucking off the taxpayers for forty years. Most certainly I’d have a better retirement plan.
“Need I post pictures of deformed Iraqi babies from Basra and Fallujah? What part of “it gets into the soil” don’t you understand? What part of “it’s a fucking offensive weapon” don’t you understand.”
—-Zara @ SSS
Go ahead and post your pictures. Then provide VERIFIABLE, UNDISPUTED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that your fucking photos of deformed Iraqi babies are the DIRECT RESULT OF DEPLETED URANIUM.
As for your assertion that the A-10 was an offensive weapon, the A-10 was designed as a DEFENSIVE weapon to blunt a massive armored attack by the Soviets and East Germans in central and southern Germany. I worked as a staff officer in Hqs USAF in Europe in the mid to late 70s, and I was assigned to the war planning staff when the A-10 was coming on line. DEFENSIVE PLANS were established to counter an attack in specific choke points, suck as the Fulda Gap, and the A-10 was an important part of that DEFENSIVE strategy.
Zara, you are way the fuck over your head here. Stop embarrassing yourself and move along.
SSS, blow me. Yes, the A10 was designed as a defensive weapon but it has never been used in anything other than an offensive role. As for the health effects of DU, that is your job biscuit. Prove to me that depleted uranium is recommended as a daily ingredient of a healthy diet. LOL.
Oh wait, nevermind. The US defensively deployed the A10’s after the Iraqis had the audacity to potentially defend themselves against the forces of the US military that were inserted merely to install freedom and justice for all. Okay, I get it now.