Replies

Were you aware that we are rebuilding the military.

Building downward you mean.

Take a look at what's going on in the big picture. Start at the key strategic nuclear end of things. Half the B-1B's retired arbitrarily. Now half the Trident Subs will wind up being lost to the strategic force...even though they have been our ace in the hole against massive strategic surprise. More than half the Minuteman force. Still deeper cuts in the Minuteman now in the newest budget. ALL of the MX prematurely and unilaterally retired without reciprocation by the Russians. And that is taking BILLIONS every year to decommision stuff, more expensively than it would be to just keep them in operation. Planning to diminish still further the aircraft carrier fleet...despite increased needs for them because of lost bases.

Retiring the IRREPLACEABLE F-14. Right now. And no, the F-18 is in no way an adequate replacement. Retiring the F-117s, although they would be very welcome ain any conflict with China. Not replacing the Xlinton-decommissioned Fleet Oilers and the underway replenishment ships. Not replacing the attack subs fast enough to maintain the fleet size, despite all studies pointing to an increased fleet size need.

Failing to budget for a restoration of a strong ASW capability, despite consistent analyses that this would be the decisive area of conflict with China. Failing to confront cascading dependency of the military for imports, because we just don't make anything here anymore...and in fact, making it WORSE, by threatening a veto against Duncan Hunter's wonderful bill.

Meanwhile almost no F-22s are getting deployed (about a fourth of what was originally deemed necessary to be deployed), while our aging F-15s are losing practice tests against the new Russian-built Su-30-mkk's. And the signs were there pointing to the program dodging a bullet... escaping program cancellation by a hairs-breadth. The J-35 may not be so lucky.

If you're going to change how the military is structured, you're going to have to CANCEL some programs and some groups - because they no longer exist .. DUH!!

The evidence is in that major wars are not things of the past with China and Iran looming. And your causality is reversed...so, no they no longer will exist...if they get CANCELLED! DUH! A lot of our needs, big or small war, is fundamental infrastructure which needs to be recapitalized, because our stuff is getting really, really old. The KC-135's for example. He should have gone to the mat on this and blowing McCain out of the water on this. Now it will cost $200 billion...and most of it might be made in Europe. Then there is the C-17... For a head's up on some picayune cost-savings idiocy he is inflicting...check out the article appended at the bottom of my post.

And .. Bush has his own agenda he wants to get done in his last 3 years. The last thing he needs is wall-to-wall Clinton in the newspapers and on TV every day.

Exactly wrong. Bush is only there because of the treacheries and untrustworthiness of Xlinton convincing the Republic of the dire need for curative change. He is only in the White House because we conservatives thought he would be an adult and hold no one above the law...and that he would finally clean up the place, which of course implicitly meant holding the perps accountable.

But instead, almost all the henchmen holdovers are still with us, and its been pass after pass, from the FBI files, to Able Danger, to Sandy Hamburglar ham-handed destruction of records...and on, and on, up to the conspicuous 'love-fest' rehabilitation of the Xlintons

And .. because of the President's reverence for the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY - I'm sure he's reluctant to drag THE OFFICE through the mud.

He and his dad's 'love-fest' for Bubba is rather dramatically destroying reverence for the office if they make it appear that there is no difference. RepublicRATs all. If he was so concerned about the OFFICE, then enforcing the OATHE of OFFICE seems to be a tad more important than superficials of congeniality. Furthermore, he should not have been in such a rush to embrace the "intel was wrong" line about going into Iraq. Instead of being a noble self-sacrifice (admitting error) it instead leaves egg on his...and the OFFICE's face... Instead, he should have demanded, "Where did the stuff we know existed, GO?" Failure to find them should have been a 'heads rolling' situation. The Iraqi Survey Group never got out of the Green Zone, and of course didn't find anything... Consequently he has let the "Office" be drug through the most mud thrown up by the RAT crackpots since, oh, Watergate. As a result it was touch and go holding onto the White House despite what should have been a slam dunk against the whack job Kerry.

Here is an info clip you may find edifying:

Stutter step for C-17 could be costly
02/17/06
author: Tim McLaughlin

If the Pentagon ends production of Boeing Co.'s C-17 cargo plane in 2008 and then decides to re-start the program a few years later, it could cost taxpayers up to several billion dollars under a scenario outlined by the U.S. Commerce Department.

The Pentagon's budget for fiscal 2007 envisions modernizing Lockheed Martin Corp.'s fleet of C-5s and ending production of the C-17 after the 180th plane rolls off the production line in early 2008. The C-17 program employs several thousand Boeing workers in California and sustains about 2,100 jobs in Missouri and Illinois.

A study by the Commerce Department's bureau of industry and security says Boeing likely would sell its 424-acre C-17 production site in Long Beach, Calif., for commercial development if the Pentagon shuttered the cargo plane program.

One scenario outlined by the Commerce Department study has the C-17 plant closing, with production resuming a few years later of only 40 or so planes at a new site. Restarting production at a new site would cost about $5.7 billion, the study said, including the expense of later shutting down the new production site after the short production run.

"The U.S. government would sustain much higher charges if more than a few years pass before the decision to resume manufacture C-17s were made," the Commerce Department study says. "The reason: Boeing would likely sell off its 424-acre site at Long Beach for commercial, residential and light residential use."

In another scenario, a decision to permanently shut down C-17 production would result in $500 million in contract close-out charges, nearly $600 million in dismantling costs and $165 million in severance payments - for a total of $1.26 billion, according to the Commerce Department study.

Richard Aboulafia, a defense analyst at the Teal Group, an aerospace and defense research firm, said the C-17 has become a political football between Congress and the Pentagon. By not funding the C-17 beyond 180 planes, the Pentagon has left Congress with the choice of doing nothing for the C-17 or getting more money for the program.

"Killing the C-17 at 180 planes is just plain stupid," Aboulafia said.

At a production rate of 15 planes a year, a C-17 costs about $167 million, excluding engines, the Commerce Department study says. That's about 45 percent less than the first C-17 delivered in 1993.

In contrast, the Pentagon is pushing to modernize 112 C-5s for about $10 billion. That would keep the fleet going through 2040.

The Pentagon's recent top-to-bottom defense review supports C-5 upgrades, rankling C-17 supporters. They point to the C-17's demonstrated reliability, pointing to mission capability rates that have topped 90 percent.

In the mid-1990s, the C-5 fleet had mission capability rates of less than 70 percent, according to a government study. Upgrading the fleet would improve the C-5's performance.

Aboulafia said it's smart to equip the C-5 fleet with modern cockpit electronics and install new engines on 50 "B" model C-5s. He's not sure, though, if it would be wise to put new engines on the older "A" model C-5s.

Lockheed Martin officials did not return calls seeking comment.

The C-17 is a smaller, but more nimble plane than the C-5. For example, it can land on a dirt runway of less than 3,000 feet. That's an important capability when moving cargo to a remote base in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But nothing in the U.S. airlift fleet matches the C-5's maximum payload, which is about 53 percent more than the C-17.

Heavy haulers

A comparison of Boeing's C-17 and Lockheed Martin's C-5.

Plane C-17 C5

Maximum payload (pounds)170,900 261,000

Maximum range (nautical miles) 2,400 2,982

Minimum runway (feet) 1,400 4,900

Fleet size 137 126

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce