Sequestration Cuts Endanger the Air Force

US News and World Report ^ | 23 Aug 13 | Mackenzie Eaglen

[SkyPilot]

This spring, it was headline news when one-third of America's active duty Air Force combat aircraft, including fighter and bomber units, were grounded due to automatic budget cuts. This became a real and tangible problem when the U.S. military started seriously evaluating available options for the Commander-in-Chief in Syria. A no-fly zone was considered one choice at the top of the list.

But had the Air Force been called into short-notice action, there would have been serious problems with mission execution and success as a result of these widespread aircraft groundings.

Now the military is again updating its choices for President Obama in Syria if called upon after the latest devastating news of potential chemical weapons use by the Assad regime. While combat air squadrons are all flying again, this is only a temporary Band-Aid.

America's Air Force is shrinking fast. Worse, there appears to be little relief in sight even as demand holds steady on airmen and their families.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recently announced that the Air Force is the second biggest loser, after the Army, if sequestration sticks (an unfortunate but likely outcome at this point). Up to seven tactical fighter squadrons could be lost. Heavy lift C-130s will be reduced from 326 today to possibly as low as 280 aircraft. All B-1 bombers will be retired as part of the latest defense drawdown from an already small fleet. Even the needed new bomber and Joint Strike Fighter would both be gone in a worst-case scenario.

[SkyPilot]

All of this combat power is on the chopping block at the very moment nearly all of the Air Force fleets of aircraft are older, on average, than ever before. This is why the Air Force's chief of staff, Gen. Mark Welsh recently summarized the situation so starkly: "Modernization is not optional."

Unfortunately, in Washington, it is.

The Air Force is being squeezed at a time the nation can least afford to fall behind in its generational dominance in air, space and cyber power.

I have never seen such a disconnect between reality and Washington DC in my lifetime. Here is the White House, about to launch a war on Syria that may trigger an attack on Israel, and an all out war in the Middle East that will verge on WW III, and our military is being decimated by budget cuts that started in 2009 ($330 Billion over ten years), continued in 2011 ($487 Billion over ten years), and now Sequestration ($650 Billion over ten years).

Last year's Sequestration cut alone was $37 Billion to the DoD, which must "pay for" 50% of all Sequestration cuts despite being 17% of the Federal budget. This year's Sequestration cut will be $52 Billion, and military readiness is already on its knees.

The public does not care - they are getting their EBT Food Stamps, Social Security checks, and Medicaid.

The Republicans and the Tea Party do not care - they want to continue to use the military as an ATM for the welfare state.

And the Democrats certainly do not care.

The

[from occupied ga]

Sequestration Cuts Endanger the Air Force

BULLSH!T

[sickoflibs]

A government shutdown will fix that.

Imagine bombing Syria with a lapse in the defense budget funding (oct 1) at the same time,

[StormEye]

This is a good thing! It leaves more money for Obama to fly Air Force to more far-away golf outings. I mean what’s an air force for if can’t be used by Obama as his personal airline?

[hal ogen]

Sequester cuts????? Who cares??? The nobamas have a new dog and the Worst Lady has a new hip-hop exercise video.

[Salgak]

So they’re killing the B-1. We have 20 remaining B-2s, each costing as much as an Aircraft Carrier, so they won’t be risked. . . leaving the now 50+ year old B-52 as our frontline strategic bomber. Which is now supposed to last into the 2040s.

Now, the old joke we had in SAC when **I** flew B-52s in the ‘80s, that they’ll eventually replace the engines with warp nacelles, and have them serving well into the 24th century actually might happen. . .

[SkyPilot]

BULLSH!T

Enlighten us with your knowledge and eloquence.

[leapfrog0202]

Yes please, enlighten us Occupied.

Maybe you aren’t living with it the way we are. There was also just an article in the Stars & Stripes about how many civilian health care workers the services lost due to sequestration.

If we keep losing them who will take care of our injured troops?

How do we defend ourselves if it comes down to that without a strong military? The cuts are in programs that hurt and hurt badly.

[from occupied ga]

I believe I did you snarky statist. NO part of the government needs the constant increases that the 0 administration has been squandering. The military can do with a few less $1000 toilet seats and $500 wrenches, and maybe a few less $5,000,000 missiles Let 'em get along on 2002's budget and not send troops and planes into every third world pest hole. Oh and because you're obviously unable to do the simple math the 2002 budget allocated 17.32% of the national budget to the military and 2012 allocates 19.16. The Military budget INCREASED 55% in the last ten years. You want more?

Eloquent enough fer ya Jack?

[from occupied ga]

The cuts are in programs that hurt and hurt badly.

Your opinion without a shred of evidence to back it up. See the table in post 9 for the actual numbers. Is it your contention that a 55% increase in the military budget over the last 10 years isn't ENOUGH?

[GreyFriar]

bye bye fly guys?

[from occupied ga]

Oh and I forgot to add that the total active duty military personnel - all branches - in 2002 was 1.413 million and in 2012 1.468 million an increase of 3.8%, so a 55% increase in budget and a 3.8 percent increase in personnel

Tell me again how this works out to reducing the military capability due to budgetary constraints

[GreyFriar]

Dear Occupied, The ‘dirty little secret’ that you are missing is that under the Obama/SecTreasury Lew Sequestration, the Department of Defense has to receive fully 50% of the budget cuts for the entire federal government. The rest of the federal government on your chart receives the other 50%. Thus seqestration is harming the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines. And those cuts are coming in this year’s budget (which is only a continuing resolution because the Dem Senate won’t act).

Also Obama has forbidden the DoD to shift funds around as it needs to make the best use of the cuts. And Congress keeps saying ‘gotta keep this system’ that the services actually want to drop, such as the destroyers the Navy wants to retire, because it will cost too much to overhaul them to become ABM capable. And don’t forget that the military is still fighting a war in Afghanistan...and it looks like bh0 is going to get us into another one in Syria.

[GreyFriar]

Apparently you didn’t notice that between 2002 and 2012 we have been fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That soldiers have been wounded and killed. The Cold War Army was disbanded in the 1990s thus an increase of personnel was needed because of what happened on Sep 11, 2001. And now that Iraq is over and Afghanistan is ending, the cuts to military manpower are beginning to happen. The Army is on its way DOWN to a force level it has not had since before the Korean War.

[from occupied ga]

Obama/SecTreasury Lew Sequestration Department of Defense has to receive fully 50% of the budget cuts for the entire federal government...

That would be a problem with the allocation of funds by the government itself. A standard tactic to blackmail taxpayers into getting gouged. The answer is that the government has total discretion of how to allocate the funds, and if 0 isn't cutting where he should the problem is with 0, not the amount budgeted. But the numbers still say that the military (and this isn't counting veterans benefits) got a 55% budget increase over ten years with a concomitant 3.8% increase in active duty personnel

[GreyFriar]

At least you got the problem being with “0” right. He wants to cut the military to fund his social welfare programs. Defense is in the constitution, social welfare programs are not.

[from occupied ga]

That soldiers have been wounded and killed

Look at the veterans benefits line of the table. This is a separate line item from the military budget. I didn't point out that veterans benefits had a 95% increase for the very reason you mentioned and because it isn't relevant to this discussion

[SkyPilot]

The same site you reference, Heritage, gives more data that demonstrates that Sequestration is gutting the military. Moreover, the percent increase you cite lumps the cost of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that included OCO funding that lumped that into the general Defense budget.

Even if we zeroed out Defense spending altogehter, we are screwed financially because of Entitlement spending (which is not being addressed by either party because they are cowards).

We were attacked after 911 - did you forget that? Yet, the percentage of our military spending (especially in % of GDP) was a historically low increase for war. We did this on the cheap by historial comparisons, and very few Americans paid the price of these wars in terms of blood, sweat, and sacrifice.

Less than 1% of Amerians serve in the military. Less than 7% have every served - yet is the military budget that is being used as an ATM machine for this nation.

The simple fact is that the military is 17% of the Federal budget, and must "pay for" 50% of all Sequestration cuts.

Furthermore, Sequestration does NOTHING to deal with our exploding Entitlements, which are the real cause of our debt and deficits. Neither party wants to deal with Entitlements, yet they are breaking the back of this nation and sapping our national will.

[from occupied ga]

At least you got the problem being with “0” right.

What can you expect from a president elected by ignoramuses and welfare parasites - A president who hates the free enterprise system. A president who wants to turn a free country into the United Socialist States of Americ?

He wants to cut the military to fund his social welfare programs

Well yes he does, but the answer to that isn't to give him more money to squander.

[NEMDF]

Eloquent. Well done, Occupied.