5 ms·

>>This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. Then who should? Should we simple give the military a Trillion Dollar a year blank check and say "go f

>>This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. Then who should? Should we simple give the military a Trillion Dollar a year blank check and say "go forth and spend it however you want" the F35 is a terrible plane and should have been scraped a long time ago, the A10 is proven plane... the Airforce has never liked the A10, it is not fast enough or shiney enough for them... I think the better plan is to bring back the USAAF and let the army start doing close air support again with more than just Helicopters... They are better at it anyway..

maxerickson 10y ago
Almost. The discussion at the congressional level should be over what sort of capabilities the military needs and can be justified. So the pentagon can bring a mission and budget to congress and ask them to approve that mission and the budget for it. This is different quite than an unrestrained lump sum.
- the_ancient 10y ago
  Umm, that is exactly what they are going They are bring forth the mission to decommission the A10, congress is saying no....
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    In my comment, a mission would be something like "close air support", not the level of maintenance to do on a specific set of aircraft.
    - the_ancient 10y ago
      So it is arbitrary definition you are making I fail to see how that is different than simply coming to congress with "We protect America now give us a trillion dollars of stolen money you pried from the citizens and do not dare ask us how we will spend it" I think every damn screw the military buys should be heavily scrutinized by someone outside the military, maybe congress is not the right venue but the idea that the military should just be allowed to spend money however they see fit is moronic on a level I can not even comprehend The military, above all other federal agencies, have proven they can not be trusted with the money they are given, they have simpley "lost" (literally unaccounted for) more money than most agencies have for their entire budget.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Because doing it in smaller pieces would enable more oversight than doing it in one chunk. I agree that it is subjective as to how detailed to get at the congressional level, but the person running my arbitrary close air support mission can go to congress and explain how much support they can provide at a certain funding level. Congress can clearly reason about that and base decisions about increasing or decreasing the budget on what sort of capability seems reasonable. In this case, Congress is mandating maintenance of the aircraft whether the military uses them or not. That's moronic.
        the_ancient 10y ago
        What is moronic is the Airforce has spent over a Trillion Dollars on a plane that still does not work, and wants to decommission a proven air system so it divert that money into the failed F35 program, and wants to decommission a proven air system with out having a proven replacement. That is moronic....
      - Retric 10y ago
        Tools != goals. The A-10 is not useful to the modern US military. If congress wants to fund something better great, but as it stands the A-10 is simply wasting Money. It's like congress is funding muskets from the revolutionary war.
        vinceguidry 10y ago
        As long as we're making comparisons to infantry weaponry, the M16 rifle is nine years older than the A-10 Warthog.
        rangibaby 10y ago
        M16 has been replaced by the M4. Some designs are so good they continue to be used actively eg the 1911 or M2. Variants of the original AK-47 are still used, even in Russia(!) where it is considered a superior weapon in urban warfare because it can penetrate cover better than more modern, smaller bullets. I think the A-10's future potential is unclear. It is theoretically extremely vulnerable to modern anti-air missiles, but the same thing could be said about the Hind helicopter, which was deployed successfully by the RUAF in Syria.
    - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
      But the Air Force is already tasked with that. Their 'customers,' i.e. the Army and Marines, say that they're trying to retire the best means of providing that support (and the Air Force is notorious for neglecting CAS if they can get away with it). So the only answer (as things stand) is to force them to keep the CAS aircraft of choice on flying status and not try to replace it with a woefully inadequate replacement. Or hand over CAS to the Army. Which is probably better long term.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        I'm coming at it from a perspective that separation of forces and procurement are broken. Given the way things are, I'm not hugely concerned that this bill is being written, but I'm still complaining about the way things are.

maxerickson 10y ago

Almost. The discussion at the congressional level should be over what sort of capabilities the military needs and can be justified. So the pentagon can bring a mission and budget to congress and ask them to approve that mission and the budget for it. This is different quite than an unrestrained lump sum.

the_ancient 10y ago
Umm, that is exactly what they are going They are bring forth the mission to decommission the A10, congress is saying no....
- maxerickson 10y ago
  In my comment, a mission would be something like "close air support", not the level of maintenance to do on a specific set of aircraft.
  - the_ancient 10y ago
    So it is arbitrary definition you are making I fail to see how that is different than simply coming to congress with "We protect America now give us a trillion dollars of stolen money you pried from the citizens and do not dare ask us how we will spend it" I think every damn screw the military buys should be heavily scrutinized by someone outside the military, maybe congress is not the right venue but the idea that the military should just be allowed to spend money however they see fit is moronic on a level I can not even comprehend The military, above all other federal agencies, have proven they can not be trusted with the money they are given, they have simpley "lost" (literally unaccounted for) more money than most agencies have for their entire budget.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Because doing it in smaller pieces would enable more oversight than doing it in one chunk. I agree that it is subjective as to how detailed to get at the congressional level, but the person running my arbitrary close air support mission can go to congress and explain how much support they can provide at a certain funding level. Congress can clearly reason about that and base decisions about increasing or decreasing the budget on what sort of capability seems reasonable. In this case, Congress is mandating maintenance of the aircraft whether the military uses them or not. That's moronic.
      - the_ancient 10y ago
        What is moronic is the Airforce has spent over a Trillion Dollars on a plane that still does not work, and wants to decommission a proven air system so it divert that money into the failed F35 program, and wants to decommission a proven air system with out having a proven replacement. That is moronic....
    - Retric 10y ago
      Tools != goals. The A-10 is not useful to the modern US military. If congress wants to fund something better great, but as it stands the A-10 is simply wasting Money. It's like congress is funding muskets from the revolutionary war.
      - vinceguidry 10y ago
        As long as we're making comparisons to infantry weaponry, the M16 rifle is nine years older than the A-10 Warthog.
        rangibaby 10y ago
        M16 has been replaced by the M4. Some designs are so good they continue to be used actively eg the 1911 or M2. Variants of the original AK-47 are still used, even in Russia(!) where it is considered a superior weapon in urban warfare because it can penetrate cover better than more modern, smaller bullets. I think the A-10's future potential is unclear. It is theoretically extremely vulnerable to modern anti-air missiles, but the same thing could be said about the Hind helicopter, which was deployed successfully by the RUAF in Syria.
  - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
    But the Air Force is already tasked with that. Their 'customers,' i.e. the Army and Marines, say that they're trying to retire the best means of providing that support (and the Air Force is notorious for neglecting CAS if they can get away with it). So the only answer (as things stand) is to force them to keep the CAS aircraft of choice on flying status and not try to replace it with a woefully inadequate replacement. Or hand over CAS to the Army. Which is probably better long term.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      I'm coming at it from a perspective that separation of forces and procurement are broken. Given the way things are, I'm not hugely concerned that this bill is being written, but I'm still complaining about the way things are.