5 ms·

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

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    M16 has been replaced by the M4.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.
    - vinceguidry 10y ago
      > M16 has been replaced by the M4. This isn't a case of replacing old tech with new tech, it's a case of the changing realities of war making a short-barreled carbine adequate for most needs. The M4 has been around since 1988, they'd had plenty of time to do the switch if it really were the better weapon.
    - Turing_Machine 10y ago
      Some designs are so good they continue to be used actively eg the 1911 or M2. The B-52 design dates back to the 1940s, with the first flight occurring in 1952. The Air Force is planning to keep those well into the 2040s. I believe one of the current B-52 pilots is the grandson of one of the original pilots. Not messing with success is often a good plan.
  - Retric 10y ago
    If you mean the name sure we used the name M16 for a while. If you me the design then no. The M16A2 is the oldest version still in limited use by US armed forces, it's significantly younger than the A-10 which first flew in 1972. This is a 44 year old front line combat aircraft. PS: They really are different guns. The original version used a 20-round magazine, that's been replaced by a 30-round version. The long range accuracy was improved etc.
yaur 10y ago
It's not arbitrary. Requirements need to be in the problem domain, not the solution domain.

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.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    > M16 has been replaced by the M4. This isn't a case of replacing old tech with new tech, it's a case of the changing realities of war making a short-barreled carbine adequate for most needs. The M4 has been around since 1988, they'd had plenty of time to do the switch if it really were the better weapon.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    Some designs are so good they continue to be used actively eg the 1911 or M2. The B-52 design dates back to the 1940s, with the first flight occurring in 1952. The Air Force is planning to keep those well into the 2040s. I believe one of the current B-52 pilots is the grandson of one of the original pilots. Not messing with success is often a good plan.
- Retric 10y ago
  If you mean the name sure we used the name M16 for a while. If you me the design then no. The M16A2 is the oldest version still in limited use by US armed forces, it's significantly younger than the A-10 which first flew in 1972. This is a 44 year old front line combat aircraft. PS: They really are different guns. The original version used a 20-round magazine, that's been replaced by a 30-round version. The long range accuracy was improved etc.

yaur 10y ago

It's not arbitrary. Requirements need to be in the problem domain, not the solution domain.