|
|
|
#1
12-26-2001, 11:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Military Spending
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://asia.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiap...ngress.budget/ Why do we need to increase defense spending again? Republicans talk about lessening the size of government, what about reducing the size of our military? (Not in strength neccessarily, or numbers, but in the oulandish spending). We spend twice as much as four of the other 'leading' countries in this world COMBINED. That stikes me as odd. Look, we spend more than Russia, China, UK, Germany, Japan, and France COMBINED and prolly still top them by 100 billion... WHY do we need more miliary spending My point is, our budget is SO massive for our military...maybe it is time we looked at organization and efficiency over budget...Why do we need INCREASED funding? Why not EFFICIENT funding? We get pissed cause NASA has a cost overrun of 4 billion over a 12 year project... DOD pays 500 bucks for hammers and 1200 bucks for ladders! Where's the outrage? Why are armed servicemen/women and US citizens pissed at the Clinton administration for lowering defense spending instead of being pissed at the DoD and the Pentagon for squandering billions? 
|
|
#2
12-26-2001, 12:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Surprise ... hammegk's Golden Rule again in action.
Looking at some ballpark estimates US oil use is 20,000,000 bbl/day value @ $20/bbl approx $150 billion/yr (worldwide $500 billion/yr) US defense $260 billion/yr Those guys who control this wealth have a VERY large say in US politics. Also think about the assets of the top ten world banks .. I'm too lazy to do the research, but predict that amassed wealth to be in the trillions. Those folks are also in the 'game'. The good news is YOU TOO can play to the best of your abilities, but complaints on the net may not be productive. 
|
|
#3
12-26-2001, 05:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Chinese Miliary Capacity
Taken from http://www.comw.org/cmp/fulltext/iddschina.html
I have added bolding for the key numbers. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the SIPRI Yearbook 1999, the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal is about 400 warheads. The Bulletin estimates that 20 nuclear-armed missiles are deployed in the intercontinental role, and another 230 nuclear weapons on deployed (or can be deployed) on aircraft, missiles, and submarines with regional capabilities. The 150 remaining nuclear warheads are believed to be reserved for "tactical" uses (short-range missiles, low yield aircraft-dropped bombs, and possibly artillery shells or demolition munitions). In 2000, the total estimated personnel strength of the Chinese military is 2.5 million, of which 1.8 million are in service with the PLA (ground forces). The PLA reserve component has about 1.2 million personnel divided into 50 infantry, artillery, and air-defense divisions. In addition, approximately 1.1 million personnel serve in the People's Armed Police, which includes internal security and border defense forces under the control of the Ministry of Defense [b]China's tank inventory has numbered around 10,000 for three decades. IDDS estimates the size of China's tank force as of 1 January 2000 at 10,100. [b] China also has a nearly 2,000 light tanks. Again, these tanks are copies of old Soviet models. [b]The People's Liberation Army Air Force, PLAAF, currently possesses about 4,350 aircraft, [b]of which the majority are combat aircraft. IDDS estimates that the inventory of Chinese combat aircraft on 1 January 2000 includes the following: 1900 J-6/MiG-19 (all roles and models: fighter, reconnaissance, trainer); 720 J-7/MiG-21 (all roles and models: fighter, reconnaissance, trainer); 222 J-8I/II/III; 55 J-11/Su-27SK; 440 Q-5 (modified MiG-19); 307 H-5/Il-28; and 142 H-6/Tu-16. 8 Small numbers of JH-7s (fewer than 12) and K-8s (10-15) may also be in service. Of these aircraft, the great majority (J-6 and J-7) are of types which began to be deployed before 1972 (See Chart 2.) With the exception of 10 Il-76s, the airlift capabilities of the Chinese Airforce are limited to old Soviet tactical airlift planes built under license or reversed-engineered in China, such as the Y-5/An-2, Y-7/An-24, and Y-8/An-12. For most of its history, the People’s Army Liberation Navy (PLAN) submarine fleet has consisted of small coastal patrol submarines and domestically produced versions of the Soviet 'Romeo' class sub. Initially lacking any real ASW capability, the Chinese 'Romeo' class (Type 033) is now outclassed by nearly every ASW system deployed by China's neighbors. In all, 73 Romeos were built for use by China between 1962 and 1987. Of these about 38 remain in active duty, although they may only go out to sea a few days per year. Another 30 are in varying conditions of reserve status. One Romeo was modified to carry six YJ-1 (C-801) anti-ship missiles, but it must surface to fire them. In the 1970s, China embarked on a program to domestically produce submarines of its own design. The first of these was the 'Ming' class (Type 035), produced from 1971 to 1979, with production resuming again in 1987. The Mings are not much better in capability than their Romeo predecessors, although they are of newer construction. Submarines of the Song (Type 039) follow-on class are slighter larger than the Ming and incorporate streamlined hull for better submerged performance. The first Song was commissioned in 1999, and two more are now under construction. Later models may incorporate design features from the Kilos. The Song class may be fitted with a version of the C-801 or C-802 anti-ship missile that is capable of submerged launch. In addition, China has purchased 4 Kilo class submarines from Russia. Additional purchases of Kilos or the newer 'Amur' class from Russia may depend on the progress of the Song class. The newest Chinese-built destroyers are two 6,000 ton 'Luhai' class. The first ship of the class entered service in late 1999, and the second is expected to enter service in 2000. Two more are planned with commissioning dates in 2002 and 2003. China operates 18 other destroyers of two principle classes. (20 total)The 4,200 ton 'Luhu' class was the basis for the 'Luhai' class. Two ships were built, with commissioning dates in 1994 and 1996, respectively, although they were originally ordered in 1985. (Construction was delayed to allow for completion of a frigate order from the Thai Navy.) The Luhus are armed with 8 C-802 ASMs, a domestically built Crotale SAM launcher, which France provided copies of in the 1980s, ASW torpedoes and mortars, and many guns. They are also capable of carrying 2 Harbin Zhi-9A helicopters, which are used for ASW and anti-ship missions. The largest class of destroyers is the 16 'Luda' I/II/III class (3,670-3,730 tons). These ships are armed with 6 C-201 ASMs, ASW torpedoes and mortars, and a heavy gun armament. The Luda II replaces the aft-most 130 mm and 37 mm gun turrets with a helicopter pad and hangar. The sole Luda III carries the C-801 instead of the less capable C-201. Two of the class have been fitted with a Crotale launcher. Others may be fitted in due course, but priority is being given to the construction of additional ships. The remaining major surface combatants comprise 37 frigates. As is the case for the destroyers, the frigates are designed mainly for anti-surface warfare and lack any significant self-defense (AAW or ASW) capabilities. The newest and most capable frigates are the 6 'Jiangwei' class ships (2,250 tons). Their armament is similar to the 'Luhu' class, but with fewer guns and missiles. They are capable of carrying a single Dauphin helicopter. The first of these ships was laid down in 1990. Three more are now under construction, with 2 more planned. There are 31 units of the one other type of frigate in service, the 1,702 ton 'Jianghu' class. The class has four sub-groups: the Jianghu I (27 in service) carry 4 C-201 ASMs, 2-4 100 mm guns, plus varying numbers of lighter caliber guns; the sole Jianghu II replaces aft armament with a helicopter hanger; and the 3 Jianghu III/IVs replace the C-201 with 8 C-801 or C-802 ASMs. China's amphibious assault capabilities are very limited. As of 1 January 2000, China has only 49 amphibious assault ships with full displacements of 1,000 tons or more (with three more ships under construction). (See Chart 5.) Of these, 42 are under 2,000 tons, and none is larger than 4,800 tons. Many are quite old, including 3 ex-US Navy LSTs built between 1942 and 1945. This small fleet size excludes any possibility of China attempting to seize control of Taiwan by means of an amphibious assault. Moreover, there is no sign that China is building or planning to build the larger troop and cargo ships which would be necessary for a large-scale attack. Similarly, China's small force of marines (about 5,000) indicates that an expansion of amphibious assault capabilities is not expected. Overall, the Navy is gaining the most from recent increases in Chinese military spending. Potentially the most ambitious naval program is the possible purchase or construction of aircraft carriers. If and when China acquires an aircraft carrier for active deployment, it will probably be a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) type, since China does not have access to vertical and short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft, such as the British Sea Harrier. The smallest CTOL carrier currently in service is the Brazilian Minas Gerais, at 20,000 tons. However, China would probably want to use its new Su-27/J-11 and possibly J-10 fighters on any carrier, which would require a flight-deck longer than that on the Brazilian ships. Current estimates place the size of the needed ship at 45,000 to 50,000 tons, which would put it in the same category as the Russian Kuznetsov or the French Charles de Gaulle. 14 Russian design assistance has been sought for the Chinese carrier program and China has studied the ex-Australian carrier Melbourne, which it was towed to China for scrap. 15 China also purchased the ex-Soviet carrier Kiev in May 2000. China is expected to deploy a carrier capable of carrying 24 fighter planes plus helicopters in the support role. The ship is likely to be conventionally powered, since China has limited experience with nuclear power in submarines only. According to press reports, the first Chinese carrier could be in service by 2005, with a second in service by 2009. Additional carriers could follow every three years. 16 China also plans to strengthen its surface fleet through the purchase of additional destroyer from Russia: In addition to the two "off the shelf" Sovremennys already bought, China plans to acquire two more Sovremenny DDGs with modifications. The delivery dates are unknown
|
|
#4
12-26-2001, 06:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If the Chicoms can be enticed into an Arms Race, that will certainly help the balance of payments problem we are running with them.
I predict they will go the same way as the old USSR in less than a decade. Data I found have the US Def.Dept closer to $300 billion. ($280b) Note that Defense is one thing our govt MUST provide by our Constitution. The yearly $400 billion to Health & Human Services and $450 billion to Soc.Security are expansions never intended by anyone except by (mostly Judicial) legislation. US Dept of Education is at the $40 billion mark. I'm not going to try to total additional State & local expenditures, but that must at least equal the Fed expenditure. I vaguely recall hearing $200 billion for total Education expenditures. Is there waste & fraud involved? Yes. Maybe you should start a SoCal grass-roots campaign to stop waste in all three areas. I'll just selfishly pay my taxes, count my blessings, & try to get through today & then tomorrow. 
|
|
#5
12-26-2001, 07:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Part 2 re: our military capabilities is coming up...
|
|
#6
12-27-2001, 12:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
We need to spend to keep upgrading to hi tech as our adversaries eventually aquire, or develop better and better technology.
It would be NICE if we could buy, or steal 20 years of military R&D like the Chinese did (it would save us a lot of money) but since we are the leader, we have no one to steal from, we must research and develop it. Hi tech costs bucks. We need to maintain our technological edge in all areas (computers, planes, boats, tanks, radar, missiles). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STRATFOR GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATE U.S. air superiority to be tested Hostile nations develop improved air-to-air capability -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Editor's note: In partnership with Stratfor, the global intelligence company, WorldNetDaily publishes daily updates on international affairs provided by the respected private research and analysis firm. Look for fresh updates each afternoon, Monday through Friday. In addition, WorldNetDaily invites you to consider STRATFOR membership, entitling you to a wealth of international intelligence reports usually available only to top executives, scholars, academic institutions and press agencies. © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com The U.S. military controls the skies over the battlefield, but several potentially hostile countries will acquire improved air-to-air fighters and upgrade older aircraft in the next few years. U.S. military strategists will consider this a potential threat. Although the United States is likely to maintain air dominance over the long term, it will have to work harder to keep its edge until its next generation of fighter aircraft comes on line. The U.S. military has been virtually unchallenged in the skies over the last decade, and it demonstrated its air superiority in the few post-Cold War air-to-air engagements in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. U.S.-built aircraft used by Washington and its allies have prevailed in combat with Russian-made Mikoyan (MiG) fighters, exacting a high cost on adversaries' air forces. Over the long term, the United States is likely to maintain this edge through new fighters, other complementary weapons systems and an unmatched ability to finance robust fighter training and operations. But until Washington can replace its current fleet of Navy F-14s and Air Force F-15s and F-16s, its dominance in the skies will be challenged as it struggles to maintain an aging force in the face of the proliferation of new fighter capabilities around the world. In the next three to five years, the U.S. military will face, for the first time in a decade, the prospect of battling for air supremacy in a conflict directly involving U.S. forces or in which an American ally is threatened. The United States will rely not only on fighters but also on a host of other military capabilities and intelligence systems to prevail in such a confrontation. Nevertheless, a short window is now open for potential adversaries to challenge what has virtually become a given in U.S. military operations: the ability to hold and control airspace. A major thrust of U.S. plans to modernize its armed forces is the development of three new fighter and attack aircraft, including the stealthy F-22 Raptor air-superiority fighter scheduled to be ready for initial operations in 2005. However, by spending an estimated $300 billion on new tactical aircraft, the Pentagon risks shortchanging the other numerous priorities to prepare for future conflicts, including missile defenses, space operations and computer warfare. The Pentagon's growing expenses have taken their most immediate toll on current military operations around the world, including its fighter forces. For example, the Air Force and Navy report about 850,000 "cannibalizations" over the past five years, in which parts are taken from one weapon system to keep other platforms operating. The F-15, considered the United States' primary operational air-superiority fighter, has been hit especially hard. The average age of the F-15 when the F-22 comes on line later this decade will be 26 years, according to soon-to-be Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper. At the same time, the Air Force is struggling to retain and recruit fighter pilots following an exodus in recent years due to long deployments and attractive private-sector opportunities with the airlines. Potential adversaries meanwhile are not standing still. A variety of nations, including those hostile to the United States and some of its allies, are on the brink of advancing their fighter capabilities through the purchase of new air-to-air fighters such as Russia's MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker, or upgrades to older models, avionics and weapons. It is widely believed in military circles that the MiG-29 and Su-27 are in many respects on par with their Western counterparts, including the U.S. F-14, F-15 and F-16, French Mirage and Rafale fighters, British Tornado and Swedish JAS-39 Grippens. According to a 1997 report in Australian Aviation, the Russians "have finally produced a generation of aircraft which are comparable at least in performance with the generation of aircraft which have protected Western skies since the seventies." These aircraft "are designed specifically for long-range offensive air warfare," the report said. The Su-27 is the first Russian-made aircraft that carries air-to-air missiles with a "fire and forget" capability. This allows pilots to engage air targets without having to lock on to the target until impact, dramatically increasing their ability to threaten enemy aircraft and protect themselves. Jumper reiterated in his testimony before the U.S. Congress Aug.1 that such new capabilities are worrisome. He said that in secret flights using "some foreign aircraft we've been able to test, our best pilots flying their airplanes beat our pilots flying our airplanes every time." The international arms market is now awash in these aircraft as well as upgraded versions that include advanced avionics and improved air-to-air weapons. Russia, for example, as part of new aircraft developments, is currently testing a phased-array radar compatible with the Su-27 and which can carry out a wide variety of tasks including selecting air targets, according to Aviation Week and Space Technology. Russia is keen to find foreign customers for the advanced radar, other components and its entire family of Sukhoi fighter and ground-attack planes. China has already purchased between 70 and 100 Su-27s as part of its bid to prevail over Taiwanese air forces, and Russia recently sold a dozen MiG-29s to Myanmar's military dictatorship to update its fleet of Mig-21s and MiG-19s. North Korea is in talks with Moscow for a wide range of arms purchases, including new MiG-29s to add to its small inventory. And other countries with MiG-29 inventories, such as Iraq, Iran and Cuba, are also seeking to upgrade their aircraft and possibly acquire new ones in the next few years. At the same time, upgrade options for former Soviet-bloc aircraft are increasing. A German-Russian joint venture known as MiG Aircraft Product Support is seeking to dominate this market, while France recently agreed to extend $55 million in credits to Snecma Corp. and Thales Corp. to provide engines and avionics to Russia's MiG-AT advanced combat jet trainer. Russia is seeking to export the MiG-AT in the future, Defense Week reported Aug. 27. Other countries such as India are also focusing on new training aircraft and other readiness programs to prevent mounting aircraft losses due to pilot inexperience. One of the primary reasons the United States has maintained air superiority is the Pentagon's emphasis not only on aviation technology but also on how to best use it. Moscow has offered potential buyers of its aircraft upgrades and up to a year of training for their pilots, according to Russian sources. U.S. allies are also finding older, but still high-tech, Soviet-era aircraft more attractive than new or used American fighters. For example, Bulgaria has decided to scrap plans to buy used F-16 Falcons and will instead refurbish its 21 Russian MiG-29s, the Associated Press reported Aug. 29. The United States, with a wide variety of capabilities from intelligence and reconnaissance to electronic warfare and long-range strikes, is unlikely to incur major losses in an air-to-air engagement between its fighter jets and the proliferating number of comparable Russian-built aircraft. The likelihood of a conflict in the near term involving dogfights is also remote. But such a scenario is not out of the question when considering the current global landscape, in which China continues to threaten Taiwan, Iran and Iraq are seeking a growing military role in the Persian Gulf and North Korea is embarking on the first military modernization in a decade. Countries possessing improved air-to-air capabilities may not directly threaten the United States, but they could threaten its allies. For instance, although Myanmar's MiG-29s may not endanger Washington, they could threaten the F-16 fleet of Thailand, a U.S. ally, thus requiring U.S. intervention. The U.S. military can no longer take for granted its reign in the skies and will have to re-emphasize its current fighter operations during the next few years to account for a growing air-to-air threat. Ironically, however, that threat will help ensure that the U.S. military is able to field a new generation of aircraft, beginning with the F-22, to solidify its lead once again.
|
|
#7
12-27-2001, 12:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
besides
The Gov't doesn't really pay that much for a hammer. They only pay $30 a peice the other $470 goes toward dry ice to keep the alien bodies in Area 51 from rotting and building secret tunnels to Alaska.
__________________
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid-Kierkegaard
|
|
#8
12-30-2001, 06:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
US missile shortage delays Iraq strike
By Sean Rayment (Filed: 30/12/2001) A SHORTAGE of cruise missiles has thrown plans for a full-scale strike on Iraq into disarray. US strikes against Afghanistan, Sudan and in Kosovo have all but depleted ALCM stocks America's supply of the air launched version, one of the US air force's most sophisticated and deadly weapons, has become so depleted that military chiefs are pressing Boeing, the manufacturers, to speed up their production. Even so, the first of the new batch of missiles ordered last year is not expected for months, and it may take longer to rebuild stocks to a level that would make such an attack viable. Strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 and Kosovo two years ago virtually exhausted the US supply. The number of conventional [non-nuclear] air launched cruise missiles left within the inventory is believed to be fewer than 30. The £900,000 missiles are a vital tactical weapon because of their ability to destroy targets from up to 800 miles without warning. The news came as President Bush pledged to maintain the war on terrorism in 2002. "Above all, this coming year will require our sustained commitment to the war against terrorism," he said in his weekly radio address. "We cannot know how long this struggle will last. But it can end only one way: in victory for America and the cause of freedom." The US joint chiefs are known to be considering a number of plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime. The military is thought to be pushing for a full-scale invasion of the country in a campaign similar to Operation Desert Storm, but this would require months of planning and the movement of hundreds of thousand of troops. Fundamental to any plan is the use of overwhelming air power. Unless Iraq's air defence system was destroyed by cruise missiles, as in the Gulf war, the chances of heavy US casualties would be high. Other options open to America include the use of Tomahawk cruise missiles, 85 of which have been fired against Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. The Tomahawks can be launched from ships or submarines but lack the range for every target in Iraq, a fact that Saddam recognises. It is also likely that the US Navy would not want its stock of Tomahawks diminished, potentially creating the nightmare scenario of the world's only military superpower being without a viable long-range missile force. Rob Hewson, the editor of Jane's Air Launched Weapons, said American bombers would not be sent in until hostile air defence and communications systems had been all but destroyed by cruise missiles. He said: "The Pentagon will not want to be in a position to launch another full-scale attack against Iraq without a full armoury of cruise missiles. Iraq has one of the largest armed forces in the world. It has a very capable air defence system and the US wouldn't want to launch an attack against it without destroying most of its air defence first. "The only real option as far as Iraq is concerned is to sit tight and replenish stocks." A Pentagon spokesman admitted that cruise missile stocks had been virtually exhausted after the strikes on Afghanistan, Sudan and Kosovo. When asked whether the shortfall would delay any future large-scale military operation, he said: "The military chiefs are aware of the situation and measures are in place to fix it." The Pentagon has also given the go-ahead for a more sophisticated version of the "Daisy Cutter" bomb which has been used in Afghanistan. The BLU118/B was first dropped on December 14 in the Nevada desert. The devices creates a pressure wave capable of destroying caves and killing troops in the open.
|
|
#9
01-03-2002, 03:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
While noone could sanely argue that there isn't waste somewhere in our massive defense budget, I find it difficult to criticize the idea that we MUST maintain the VERY BEST military forces that money can buy...period.
The world is not a nice place. As Powerboss said, the primary Constitutionally endowed power of the federal goverment is defense. Our military forces have kept us a relative peace for more than 50 years. This is because our military forces are pro-active (I really hate that word to tell you the truth, but it is very applicable in this case) in having the ability to execute our interests world wide. Generally, I favor less intervention by our military forces everywhere. But, as long as our politicians (Dems and Reps) insist on involving us in every little skirmish (Kosovo, Iraq, etc), then we have no alternative but to fund it.
|
|
#10
01-03-2002, 04:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Which brings us to the point of not are we spending enough money, but are we spending it in the right places? I've mentioned it before, but do you realize that until very recently, our military has been gearing up for a major land campaign in Europe, which I don't think any but some of the most foolhardy will predict to happen anywhere in the near future. We must spend our money more intelligently. And another good point raised here, some people who want to make us even more isolated want a stronger army too. That would, obviously, lead to defense spending in actual defense, which our country has never really tried to do.
|
|
#11
01-03-2002, 04:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Either we are the superpower, or a wanna be hasbeen in the smoking rubble. That is the US status vis-a-vis a lot of the world, fundamentalist Islam being the prime concern right now.
|
|
#12
01-03-2002, 04:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Um, hamme, I think you misread what I was trying to say. I was trying to say how ridiculous it would be to concentrate on defense spending. I was trying to advocate the fact that we should not be isolationist, and spend our money accordingly.
|
|
#13
01-03-2002, 05:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
