Such an F-16 was indeed proposed many moons ago
Posted on 07/30/2011 9:25:45 PM PDT by Clairity
The House's pro-Defense hard-liners Saturday stepped into the debt-ceiling drama, opposing the Pentagon spending levels proposed in debt plans put out by both Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) targeted Reid's debt plan.
That plan, which the House rejected Saturday, contains large but vague Defense cuts. Reid's bill would cap annual spending by the Pentagon and other agencies over the next two years at $1.2 trillion, while also assuming $1 trillion in savings as the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts wind down.
Reid's plan "would give the president full freedom to continue his domestic spending spree, while doing nothing to address our out of control deficit," McKeon said in a statement released Saturday. "It makes insignificant reforms to the real driver of our debt, entitlement programs, while hacking away at the dwindling resources needed by our armed forces to keep America safe."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
South Korea spends about 1/2 as much as us, as a percent of GDP. Taiwan spends even less.
MAybe BO is counting on obamacare being ruled unconstituional.
First of all, you compare how much the US spends on defense vs the rest of the world. The problem with that is that what we pay for people and things is not comparable to what other countries pay. For instance, the average Chinese soldier gets paid about 1/4 (or less) than the average US soldier. I would guess that the same goes for other military costs - they pay quite a bit less per item/activity. While we have a superior military, 4 to 1 numerical advantage is more difficult to overcome. Further, we have a superior military because we spend so much.
The second issue is your statement They might become a threat later in the century, but we can respond to that when it comes. That is how we got into WWII with such an inadequate force, by waiting to respond to threats when they come. Our government, by design, responds to new threats slowly. We need to stay in front, to keep the deterrence factor at a high level.
That said, we do not need to station ground troops in Europe or some of the other areas of the world. Your ratio of active to reserve is also a bit low, but can be reduced. In short, there are many ways to save, but cut with a sharp knife, not a hatchet (much of the rest of the government, the hatchet could be replaced with an axe).
Mike
Having spent 24 years in uniform and another 12 years working alongside those in uniform, I can tell you that having a lopsided part-time military would be a disaster in this technological age. In order to keep them all ready for actual operations would take every bit as much up time and funding as keeping them on the active rosters. You might be comfortable with using the third string to keep us safe, but our enemies would also be heartened with the knowledge...
I am always amazed at the so called patriots who feel it ok to squeeze soldiers and the equipment (”gadgets”) that protects them.
Granted there is a lot of waste, idiot bureaucrates, way too many officers doing nothing but on a garden party during deployments, payments to gays and minority protection in the military (illegitimate race and creed listings), mismanaged wars and overpaid civilian contractors out there.
I think we could do the following:
1. Substantially cut back on European force deployments except for a minimal presence to support operations in the Middle East, such as air bases.
2. Possibly cancel the F-35 and replace it with a much-upgraded F-16 model with an upgraded wing for improved maneuverability, a derivative of the Pratt & Whitney F119 engine, the F-35's radar and a new cockpit derived from the F-35 cockpit, and possibly using a licensed version of the MBDA Meteor missile capable to taking down targets around 100 km (62 miles) away.
3. Phase out a large number of "middle officers" from all branches of the armed forces.
In a $687 billion Defense budget there is at least 10% that can be cut. Conservative are never going to win this war if they fall into this old DC trap.
DC always avoids making any serious spending cuts by pitting one interest group against the other. Defense Hawks against Entitlements, Domestic spending vrs security spending etc.
The only way to win this Budget battle is to take these tactics away from DC. EVERYTHING has to be on the table for at least some reduction.
Thanks for informing this reader with FACTS.
PS to recovering: Welcome to ADVANCED rehab. Suggest take cotton out of ears; place in mouth :)
“Look we are broke. The only way this is every going to be solved if we accept that every single thing in the US Federal Budget is going to have to be cut.”
It’s just like a family budget — you PRIORITIZE.
Such an F-16 was indeed proposed many moons ago
There never was an attempt to use a modified F404 engine for an F-4 rebuild program. Pratt & Whitney developed the PW1120 engine, essentially a derivative of the F100 engine, specifically for this application; when tested by the Israelis on a modified F-4E, the PW1120-powered plane offered a major leap up in performance compared to the J79-powered F-4E and if the Israeli AF had chosen this update, would probably have extended the lifetime of the F-4 in Israeli service well into the 2000's.
Yep and you would be in the lunatic fringe with Ron, where you belong.
Barry Goldwater set the Conservative cause back severely, if Reagan had not rose up, then we would be full fledged Socialist Nation today. We are so close to that now that it should strike fear in the hearts of Libertarians, but they just don't seem to see who benefits from their position.
“Barry Goldwater set the Conservative cause back severely, if Reagan had not rose up, then we would be full fledged Socialist Nation today. We are so close to that now that it should strike fear in the hearts of Libertarians, but they just don’t seem to see who benefits from their position.”
Unfortunately too true.
B.S. The army has 18 active brigades. To put that in perspective. The Wehrmacht averaged one brigade lost every day they were in combat on the Eastern Front. It’s true the US Army isn’t the Wehrmacht and there are no large scale conventional battles in sight but there are plenty of other ways to cut the federal budget.
Absolutely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.