priorities
Comments
-
The bulk of military spending goes to contractors. For instance just hretainere there are $12 billion in knowledge based contracts. Those are for people that don't actually do anything, but used to, so they basically are on a retainer.UWhuskytskeet said:
Lol, $600B in spending, military is so depleted.doogie said:After Obama depleted the military to the extent he did, Trump really has no choice but to rebuild/resupply the military.
It sure is going to be generating a lot of healthcare, retirement plan funded jobs.
Boeing says hi! Easy one for Patty Murray and Maria Cantrell to vote YES! for.
Boeing actually produces something btw. Military is 95% paper pushers and glorified janitors. -
You're a drone but not the wave of the future!2001400ex said:
Clearly. I still think drones are the wave of the future, not warplanes.ThomasFremont said:
This isn't a video game or Top Gun where aircraft dog fight. Air superiority/supremacy extends far beyond that narrow scope.2001400ex said:
How many airplanes does ISIS engage us with? How many planes did Iraq or Afghanistan engage us with? I guess I should have been more clear. Why invest in old school war planes when we can use drones?ThomasFremont said:
All of them for the past 100 years?2001400ex said:
What recent war has warplanes mattered?Mosster47 said:
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.dhdawg said:
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the pointHippopeteamus said:
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.dhdawg said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/trump-seeking-54b-increase-in-defense-spending-cuts-elsewhere.html
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
For someone that likes to knock people for not doing research or knowing facts, you're woefully out of touch on this subject. -
Hurtful.Sledog said:
You're a drone but not the wave of the future!2001400ex said:
Clearly. I still think drones are the wave of the future, not warplanes.ThomasFremont said:
This isn't a video game or Top Gun where aircraft dog fight. Air superiority/supremacy extends far beyond that narrow scope.2001400ex said:
How many airplanes does ISIS engage us with? How many planes did Iraq or Afghanistan engage us with? I guess I should have been more clear. Why invest in old school war planes when we can use drones?ThomasFremont said:
All of them for the past 100 years?2001400ex said:
What recent war has warplanes mattered?Mosster47 said:
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.dhdawg said:
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the pointHippopeteamus said:
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.dhdawg said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/trump-seeking-54b-increase-in-defense-spending-cuts-elsewhere.html
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
For someone that likes to knock people for not doing research or knowing facts, you're woefully out of touch on this subject. -
I totally get you don't understand how war works and that's fine. We haven't shot down an enemy aircraft since 1991. An F-15 from Oregon shot down an Iraqi MIG with two AIM-120A's.2001400ex said:
How many airplanes does ISIS engage us with? How many planes did Iraq or Afghanistan engage us with? I guess I should have been more clear. Why invest in old school war planes when we can use drones?ThomasFremont said:
All of them for the past 100 years?2001400ex said:
What recent war has warplanes mattered?Mosster47 said:
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.dhdawg said:
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the pointHippopeteamus said:
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.dhdawg said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/trump-seeking-54b-increase-in-defense-spending-cuts-elsewhere.html
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
The military knows this and that's why the Air Force only has one air superiority training school for the F-15C/D, F-22, and F-35 platforms and they only graduate around 28 pilots a year. That's not the point.
The reason why we haven't had to shoot down an enemy since 1991 is because we are currently in a theater where the air war was almost non-existent. However, if we were to ever engage with anyone else on the shit list, be it Russia, China, Korea, etc. The air war wouldn't be a given. Our entire war fighting doctrine is based on air superiority, period. We don't have fighter drones yet because they aren't fast enough and can't maintain length during combat maneuvers. That will one day be resolved, no ETA on those though.
The Air Force is smaller today than it was in 1947 when it started. The Army and Navy are much smaller as well. When you have a smaller force that is built for efficiency and minimal casualties you have to be completely air dominant. We have ancient air superiority aircraft. We need to spend the money to change that. -
I don't disagree with a lot of that. We do need planes even just for protection of air Force one and commercial aircraft. There are many instances where fighter planes are called upon to escort a commercial plane that we never hear about.Mosster47 said:
I totally get you don't understand how war works and that's fine. We haven't shot down an enemy aircraft since 1991. An F-15 from Oregon shot down an Iraqi MIG with two AIM-120A's.2001400ex said:
How many airplanes does ISIS engage us with? How many planes did Iraq or Afghanistan engage us with? I guess I should have been more clear. Why invest in old school war planes when we can use drones?ThomasFremont said:
All of them for the past 100 years?2001400ex said:
What recent war has warplanes mattered?Mosster47 said:
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.dhdawg said:
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the pointHippopeteamus said:
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.dhdawg said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/trump-seeking-54b-increase-in-defense-spending-cuts-elsewhere.html
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
The military knows this and that's why the Air Force only has one air superiority training school for the F-15C/D, F-22, and F-35 platforms and they only graduate around 28 pilots a year. That's not the point.
The reason why we haven't had to shoot down an enemy since 1991 is because we are currently in a theater where the air war was almost non-existent. However, if we were to ever engage with anyone else on the shit list, be it Russia, China, Korea, etc. The air war wouldn't be a given. Our entire war fighting doctrine is based on air superiority, period. We don't have fighter drones yet because they aren't fast enough and can't maintain length during combat maneuvers. That will one day be resolved, no ETA on those though.
The Air Force is smaller today than it was in 1947 when it started. The Army and Navy are much smaller as well. When you have a smaller force that is built for efficiency and minimal casualties you have to be completely air dominant. We have ancient air superiority aircraft. We need to spend the money to change that.
My comment was on someone ranting about a bunch of investment in all these different planes. My point wasn't to say we need to stop investing in fighter planes, it's that times have changed and the need for a huge stockpile of planes isn't necessary. We should invest in better technology that's conducive to the future. -
TL, DR. Thanks Tequila.2001400ex said:
I don't disagree with a lot of that. We do need planes even just for protection of air Force one and commercial aircraft. There are many instances where fighter planes are called upon to escort a commercial plane that we never hear about.Mosster47 said:
I totally get you don't understand how war works and that's fine. We haven't shot down an enemy aircraft since 1991. An F-15 from Oregon shot down an Iraqi MIG with two AIM-120A's.2001400ex said:
How many airplanes does ISIS engage us with? How many planes did Iraq or Afghanistan engage us with? I guess I should have been more clear. Why invest in old school war planes when we can use drones?ThomasFremont said:
All of them for the past 100 years?2001400ex said:
What recent war has warplanes mattered?Mosster47 said:
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.dhdawg said:
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the pointHippopeteamus said:
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.dhdawg said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/trump-seeking-54b-increase-in-defense-spending-cuts-elsewhere.html
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
The military knows this and that's why the Air Force only has one air superiority training school for the F-15C/D, F-22, and F-35 platforms and they only graduate around 28 pilots a year. That's not the point.
The reason why we haven't had to shoot down an enemy since 1991 is because we are currently in a theater where the air war was almost non-existent. However, if we were to ever engage with anyone else on the shit list, be it Russia, China, Korea, etc. The air war wouldn't be a given. Our entire war fighting doctrine is based on air superiority, period. We don't have fighter drones yet because they aren't fast enough and can't maintain length during combat maneuvers. That will one day be resolved, no ETA on those though.
The Air Force is smaller today than it was in 1947 when it started. The Army and Navy are much smaller as well. When you have a smaller force that is built for efficiency and minimal casualties you have to be completely air dominant. We have ancient air superiority aircraft. We need to spend the money to change that.
My comment was on someone ranting about a bunch of investment in all these different planes. My point wasn't to say we need to stop investing in fighter planes, it's that times have changed and the need for a huge stockpile of planes isn't necessary. We should invest in better technology that's conducive to the future. -
30 seconds of research and some bad ass videos tell me that as of now there won't be dogfights if an f22 is involved because it will fuck up everything else in the sky before they even see it.
-
apparently this increase get this, isn't enough, for some of these idiot warhawks
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2017/02/28/Republicans-oppose-Trump-s-defense-spending-plans-domestic-cuts/stories/201702280227 -
Just last week we were supposed to listen to McCaindhdawg said:apparently this increase get this, isn't enough, for some of these idiot warhawks
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2017/02/28/Republicans-oppose-Trump-s-defense-spending-plans-domestic-cuts/stories/201702280227 -
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen written here.2001400ex said:
What recent war has warplanes mattered?Mosster47 said:
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.dhdawg said:
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the pointHippopeteamus said:
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.dhdawg said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/trump-seeking-54b-increase-in-defense-spending-cuts-elsewhere.html
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built. -
I once attended a talk in DC by one of the directors of the design/development teams for the F-16 and A-10. He maintained that, if we jammed today's electronics and weapons systems into the F-86 airframe, and he got to pick his pilots, he could defeat any air force in the world with 100 planes.Mosster47 said:
I totally get you don't understand how war works and that's fine. We haven't shot down an enemy aircraft since 1991. An F-15 from Oregon shot down an Iraqi MIG with two AIM-120A's.2001400ex said:
How many airplanes does ISIS engage us with? How many planes did Iraq or Afghanistan engage us with? I guess I should have been more clear. Why invest in old school war planes when we can use drones?ThomasFremont said:
All of them for the past 100 years?2001400ex said:
What recent war has warplanes mattered?Mosster47 said:
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.dhdawg said:
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the pointHippopeteamus said:
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.dhdawg said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/trump-seeking-54b-increase-in-defense-spending-cuts-elsewhere.html
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
The military knows this and that's why the Air Force only has one air superiority training school for the F-15C/D, F-22, and F-35 platforms and they only graduate around 28 pilots a year. That's not the point.
The reason why we haven't had to shoot down an enemy since 1991 is because we are currently in a theater where the air war was almost non-existent. However, if we were to ever engage with anyone else on the shit list, be it Russia, China, Korea, etc. The air war wouldn't be a given. Our entire war fighting doctrine is based on air superiority, period. We don't have fighter drones yet because they aren't fast enough and can't maintain length during combat maneuvers. That will one day be resolved, no ETA on those though.
The Air Force is smaller today than it was in 1947 when it started. The Army and Navy are much smaller as well. When you have a smaller force that is built for efficiency and minimal casualties you have to be completely air dominant. We have ancient air superiority aircraft. We need to spend the money to change that. -
Did you find a way to block @Tequilla?Swaye said:
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen written here.2001400ex said:
What recent war has warplanes mattered?Mosster47 said:
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.dhdawg said:
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the pointHippopeteamus said:
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.dhdawg said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/trump-seeking-54b-increase-in-defense-spending-cuts-elsewhere.html
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built. -
Trump is a winner. McCain, a loser. Don't worry about McCain. Trump has your back, dhdawg.
-
And there's a lot of dumbest shit to choose from.Swaye said:
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen written here.2001400ex said:
What recent war has warplanes mattered?Mosster47 said:
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.dhdawg said:
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the pointHippopeteamus said:
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.dhdawg said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/trump-seeking-54b-increase-in-defense-spending-cuts-elsewhere.html
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
But, yes.
-
It's up there in Handa's greatest hits with Hindu/Muslim relations and radio journalist surveys.PurpleThrobber said:
And there's a lot of dumbest shit to choose from.Swaye said:
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen written here.2001400ex said:
What recent war has warplanes mattered?Mosster47 said:
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.dhdawg said:
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the pointHippopeteamus said:
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.dhdawg said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/trump-seeking-54b-increase-in-defense-spending-cuts-elsewhere.html
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
But, yes. -
We need to do something about the military's depletion under Obama.
-
Thanks for the reminder.GrundleStiltzkin said:
It's up there in Handa's greatest hits with Hindu/Muslim relations and radio journalist surveys.PurpleThrobber said:
And there's a lot of dumbest shit to choose from.Swaye said:
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen written here.2001400ex said:
What recent war has warplanes mattered?Mosster47 said:
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.dhdawg said:
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the pointHippopeteamus said:
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.dhdawg said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/trump-seeking-54b-increase-in-defense-spending-cuts-elsewhere.html
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
But, yes. -
This is from reuters.dhdawg said:Trump also said on Monday he would talk about his plans for infrastructure spending in a speech to Congress on Tuesday. "We're going to start spending on infrastructure big," he said
where is this money coming from?
three sources:
1. The Bond fairy
2. Savings from the elimination of bureaucratic saboteurs inside government
3. Tax revenues from increased economic activity.
-
That is true. The AIM-9X and AIM-120C/D platform make a P-51 unstoppable with the right avionics and radar. I know this because it was actually a prototype to cut down on flight per hour costs.BearsWiin said:
I once attended a talk in DC by one of the directors of the design/development teams for the F-16 and A-10. He maintained that, if we jammed today's electronics and weapons systems into the F-86 airframe, and he got to pick his pilots, he could defeat any air force in the world with 100 planes.Mosster47 said:
I totally get you don't understand how war works and that's fine. We haven't shot down an enemy aircraft since 1991. An F-15 from Oregon shot down an Iraqi MIG with two AIM-120A's.2001400ex said:
How many airplanes does ISIS engage us with? How many planes did Iraq or Afghanistan engage us with? I guess I should have been more clear. Why invest in old school war planes when we can use drones?ThomasFremont said:
All of them for the past 100 years?2001400ex said:
What recent war has warplanes mattered?Mosster47 said:
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.dhdawg said:
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the pointHippopeteamus said:
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.dhdawg said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/trump-seeking-54b-increase-in-defense-spending-cuts-elsewhere.html
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
The military knows this and that's why the Air Force only has one air superiority training school for the F-15C/D, F-22, and F-35 platforms and they only graduate around 28 pilots a year. That's not the point.
The reason why we haven't had to shoot down an enemy since 1991 is because we are currently in a theater where the air war was almost non-existent. However, if we were to ever engage with anyone else on the shit list, be it Russia, China, Korea, etc. The air war wouldn't be a given. Our entire war fighting doctrine is based on air superiority, period. We don't have fighter drones yet because they aren't fast enough and can't maintain length during combat maneuvers. That will one day be resolved, no ETA on those though.
The Air Force is smaller today than it was in 1947 when it started. The Army and Navy are much smaller as well. When you have a smaller force that is built for efficiency and minimal casualties you have to be completely air dominant. We have ancient air superiority aircraft. We need to spend the money to change that.
The issue is those missiles are extremely expensive and we don't have that many of them.
If we get into a legit air war I hope we have something better than 9G aircraft. -
All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
-
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.phineas said:All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
-
Snowflake.phineas said:All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
-
Oh hell just come out and liberal, commie asshat snowflakes! They're the rot.oregonblitzkrieg said:
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.phineas said:All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
-
Engrish please.Sledog said:
Oh hell just come out and liberal, commie asshat snowflakes! They're the rot.oregonblitzkrieg said:
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.phineas said:All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
-
Native American Tribes will acquire America with their casino winnings long before the banana, cocoa and coffee growers make a dent. Whitey loves his games, but the house always wins.oregonblitzkrieg said:
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.phineas said:All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
-
@Swaye , true?!?TurdBuffer said:
Native American Tribes will acquire America with their casino winnings long before the banana, cocoa and coffee growers make a dent. Whitey loves his games, but the house always wins.oregonblitzkrieg said:
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.phineas said:All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
-
True. After we take America back I am kicking all of you out and building a wall.Mosster47 said:
@Swaye , true?!?TurdBuffer said:
Native American Tribes will acquire America with their casino winnings long before the banana, cocoa and coffee growers make a dent. Whitey loves his games, but the house always wins.oregonblitzkrieg said:
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.phineas said:All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
-
But will that adobe hold...?Swaye said:
True. After we take America back I am kicking all of you out and building a wall.Mosster47 said:
@Swaye , true?!?TurdBuffer said:
Native American Tribes will acquire America with their casino winnings long before the banana, cocoa and coffee growers make a dent. Whitey loves his games, but the house always wins.oregonblitzkrieg said:
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.phineas said:All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
-
Better think this through. Kick us? out and we take the white man's vaccines with us (Hi @pawz!). Swaye Jr Jr might not appreciate what comes next.Swaye said:
True. After we take America back I am kicking all of you out and building a wall.Mosster47 said:
@Swaye , true?!?TurdBuffer said:
Native American Tribes will acquire America with their casino winnings long before the banana, cocoa and coffee growers make a dent. Whitey loves his games, but the house always wins.oregonblitzkrieg said:
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.phineas said:All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
