Not so fast you Zoomie bastards...

[Sturgeon]

Anyone got any good info on the YA-9? It'd be interesting to see what that could've turned out like in comparison too the A-10.

I think I do, but I'll have to dig it up.

[Xlucine]

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1991/June 1991/0691horner.aspx

This is well worth reading, but I'm posting it here because of the A-10 section. Main point: according to the guy in charge of US air power during the 1991 gulf war,  the F-16 was more survivable than the A-10 (and he allocated A-10s to softer targets because of this fact)

[Sturgeon]

NO SHIT.

Let's all not forget what the A-10 fundamentally is: A heavy COIN bird.

(And when you put it like that...)

[Sturgeon]

Can anyone get me cost/flight hour figures for the A-10? Bonus points if you can get me CPFH figures for different years over the aircraft's service life.

[Ramlaen]

2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Can anyone get me cost/flight hour figures for the A-10? Bonus points if you can get me CPFH figures for different years over the aircraft's service life.

A-10C Warthog Attack Plane — $17,716

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

What's a plane like the F-15 or F-18 cost?

 

[Belesarius]

42 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

What's a plane like the F-15 or F-18 cost?

 

Here is a business insider article on that.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/price-military-aircraft-per-flight-hour-2016-8/#f-15c-6

 

F-15C : $24,140 per hour

F-18F: $11,140 per hour

 

BI also contradicts Raamlen's source and says A-10C is $5,944 per hour

 

 

[Sturgeon]

Really good article on replacing the A-10 by Col. Pietrucha.

[Toxn]

20 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Really good article on replacing the A-10 by Col. Pietrucha.

Nice, but I love the idea of the USAF being 'chronically underfunded'. I mean, compared to what?

[Collimatrix]

9 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Nice, but I love the idea of the USAF being 'chronically underfunded'. I mean, compared to what?

 

I could buy that the entire US Armed Forces is chronically underfunded, provided that we're talking about the part what actually does the killing.  Useless pork and desk jobs are probably a-ok.

[Toxn]

2 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

I could buy that the entire US Armed Forces is chronically underfunded, provided that we're talking about the part what actually does the killing.  Useless pork and desk jobs are probably a-ok.

The biggest and most potent armed force on the planet cannot be 'underfunded' by any definition except the mission-related one.

And if you construe your mission widely enough (pacify the planet, perhaps) you can be underfunded no matter what you spend.

 

So it's nonsense either way.

[Collimatrix]

Just now, Toxn said:

The biggest and most potent armed force on the planet cannot be 'underfunded' by any definition except the mission-related one.

And if you construe your mission widely enough (pacify the planet, perhaps) you can be underfunded no matter what you spend.

 

So it's nonsense either way.

 

 

I would think that mission-related metrics are the only ones that matter.  A military is there to be able to fulfill certain practical objectives, not fill out a comfortable median position on comparative bar charts.

But if we're going off of non-mission related metrics, is US military spending really that high?  As a percent of GDP, US military spending isn't even in the top ten.  If you count Western Europe as a US colony and NATO as an extension of the US military (and let's be honest, they are), then the figure drops even further.

[Toxn]

2 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

I would think that mission-related metrics are the only ones that matter.  A military is there to be able to fulfill certain practical objectives, not fill out a comfortable median position on comparative bar charts.

But if we're going off of non-mission related metrics, is US military spending really that high?  As a percent of GDP, US military spending isn't even in the top ten.  If you count Western Europe as a US colony and NATO as an extension of the US military (and let's be honest, they are), then the figure drops even further.

You kids have shitty taste in colonies then - not much room for resettlement or colonial expropriation.

 

Anyway; fair enough - you build your military to fulfil practical objectives. Except your politicians recognise no practical limits to your military's mandate. That's like saying my model aircraft activities are underfunded, because I'm determined to build a space capable rocket in my garage.

 

Further; using spending as a percentage of GPD is also problematic, because the numbers are so opaque as to be meaningless. Do you include the $50 billion black budget in your own, for instance? Having declared the EU and NATO to be extensions of the US military - do you tack on their budgets ($230 billion and 80% of whatever NATO's budget is) as well? Do we play the same games with other countries?

 

If you look at the US military's declared budget, it actually looks reasonably personel-lean in terms of costs.

[Collimatrix]

10 minutes ago, Toxn said:

 

 

Further; using spending as a percentage of GPD is also problematic, because the numbers are so opaque as to be meaningless. Do you include the $50 billion black budget in your own, for instance? Having declared the EU and NATO to be extensions of the US military - do you tack on their budgets ($230 billion and 80% of whatever NATO's budget is) as well? Do we play the same games with other countries?

 

 

Using the military's stated budget is worthless unless you break it down into actual military spending vs. waste that masquerades publicly under the name of military spending.  Naturally, this is made as difficult as possible.

[Toxn]

1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

Using the military's stated budget is worthless unless you break it down into actual military spending vs. waste that masquerades publicly under the name of military spending.  Naturally, this is made as difficult as possible.

So we agree that the numbers are worthless.

[Collimatrix]

24 minutes ago, Toxn said:

So we agree that the numbers are worthless.

 

The total budget numbers are.

But things like readiness rates or pilot training hours are harder to dismiss.

[Toxn]

12 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

The total budget numbers are.

But things like readiness rates or pilot training hours are harder to dismiss.

Again, that can be interpreted (and I will) more as 'overbuilt' than 'under budgeted'.

 

If you want a force that can sustain indefinite combat operations in half a dozen countries, and conduct active operations in a dozen more, then no amount of money will solve your issues.

[Sturgeon]

At this current point in time, all branches of the US military are chronicly underfunded.

 

The reason is in part because we had an administration in the White House that bought the kind of brain dead logic your second post reflects. Hurr durr, the US military can't be underfunded, look at how big it is!

 

Take for example a powerlifter who tries to get by on just 2500 calories a day. Sitting around one day, his wife starts nagging him that he doesn't eat enough, he starves himself, and he needs to eat more. Sitting there with them, you pipe up: "Psh, he's fine! Look at how big he is! Plus, he eats 500 calories a day more than me! He can't be starved." Upon you saying this, the wife glares at you with a look of pure hatred in her eyes and looks as if she is losing the battle of will to not slap you upside the head with the back of her ring-studded hand. Because, what you don't know is he's stalled on weights, cranky all the time, sleeping too little, etc. He's not in good shape, despite his diet. A bit of a walking wreck, in fact.

 

I can only push the analogy so far, but it is even more true for the USAF. The condition of our nuclear arsenal is a disgrace, with respect both to maintenance and security. Our aircraft readiness is abysmal, with most types grounded at a rate of 75% or worse. It's a disaster.

 

 

[Toxn]

3 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

At this current point in time, all branches of the US military are chronicly underfunded.

 

The reason is in part because we had an administration in the White House that bought the kind of brain dead logic your second post reflects. Hurr durr, the US military can't be underfunded, look at how big it is!

 

Take for example a powerlifter who tries to get by on just 2500 calories a day. Sitting around one day, his wife starts nagging him that he doesn't eat enough, he starves himself, and he needs to eat more. Sitting there with them, you pipe up: "Psh, he's fine! Look at how big he is! Plus, he eats 500 calories a day more than me! He can't be starved." Upon you saying this, the wife glares at you with a look of pure hatred in her eyes and looks as if she is losing the battle of will to not slap you upside the head with the back of her ring-studded hand. Because, what you don't know is he's stalled on weights, cranky all the time, sleeping too little, etc. He's not in good shape, despite his diet. A bit of a walking wreck, in fact.

 

I can only push the analogy so far, but it is even more true for the USAF. The condition of our nuclear arsenal is a disgrace, with respect both to maintenance and security. Our aircraft readiness is abysmal, with most types grounded at a rate of 75% or worse. It's a disaster.

 

 

Thanks for the pointless analogy. Here's mine: this hypothetical guy is so built because he spent years training to take on the only other heavyweight boxer in town. Then, right before the big fight, the other guy had a coronary and died.

 

But this guy didn't stop training, and eating, for that fight. Now, having pointlessly burned through his food money again, he's wondering why he's hungry all the goddamn time. He's also been on like a year-long tear of picking fights with the smaller guys in the neighbourhood, but that's getting too convoluted even for this stupid story.

 

It's pointless, this fucking massive machine your government seems intent on maintaining in perpetuity. It does nothing but enable your leader's worst impulses and immiserate the rest of us. It could be slashed in half and still maintain parity with the next two largest forces on earth. Hell, it could be scrapped entirely apart from the nuclear forces and none of your interests would suffer.

 

So, to my eye, the braindead thing here is the idea that your armed forces need to be endlessly built up for a mission with no clear scope or restriction. And the only thing more braindead than that (which is what you seem to be referring to) is the idea that you can ask for the same without paying even more than you already do for it.

[Sturgeon]

15 minutes ago, Toxn said:

 

It's pointless, this fucking massive machine your government seems intent on maintaining in perpetuity. It does nothing but enable your leader's worst impulses and immiserate the rest of us. It could be slashed in half and still maintain parity with the next two largest forces on earth. Hell, it could be scrapped entirely apart from the nuclear forces and none of your interests would suffer.

 

So, to my eye, the braindead thing here is the idea that your armed forces need to be endlessly built up for a mission with no clear scope or restriction. And the only thing more braindead than that (which is what you seem to be referring to) is the idea that you can ask for the same without paying even more than you already do for it.

 

The rest of the world loooooves to whine about this, but I really doubt you'd enjoy the power vacuum so much if the US really did scale things back. Which doesn't mean I think US foreign policy has been great (it's been a fucking mess lately). But naw, I'm not keen on the bitching.

And for the record, the US (neither the military nor the taxpayers) really has no interest in "maintaining parity". The way to keep the peace is to be so far ahead of everyone else that nobody even thinks of fucking with you.

 

Is there waste in the US military? Yes, there's a bloody lot of it, and that's something a lot of decent people fight every day. But when you have readiness figures at something like 20% or worse in some cases, you really can't act like the force is over-funded.

[Sturgeon]

24 minutes ago, Toxn said:

It could be slashed in half and still maintain parity with the next two largest forces on earth.

 

Hey buddy, how bout you stop worrying about this

 

 

And start worrying about this

 

 

It's all good though, we Americans know from experience in WWI, Europe and Asia in the '40s, and all over the world during the Cold War - in fact, the entire previous 100 years have been nothing but this - that when big bad countries start getting too greedy and mean, the rest of the world will want us there. And we'll oblige, cuz we're just cool like that.

 

 

[Toxn]

 

11 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

The rest of the world loooooves to whine about this, but I really doubt you'd enjoy the power vacuum so much if the US really did scale things back. Which doesn't mean I think US foreign policy has been great (it's been a fucking mess lately). But naw, I'm not keen on the bitching.

And for the record, the US (neither the military nor the taxpayers) really has no interest in "maintaining parity". The way to keep the peace is to be so far ahead of everyone else that nobody even thinks of fucking with you.

 

Is there waste in the US military? Yes, there's a bloody lot of it, and that's something a lot of decent people fight every day. But when you have readiness figures at something like 20% or worse in some cases, you really can't act like the force is over-funded.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree here, as I think our underpinning concepts of what the force 'should' be are very different.

 

For myself; I think I'm also subconsciously contemplating a world where countries don't seem to be able to put themselves back together after being torn apart. And here's this... thing roaming the earth, that is peerless in power but can only destroy. And it can't seem to stop itself.

 

My son might live for a hundred years, and the US presently destroys a country every few. Linear trends (which aren't usually accurate, but viscerally appeal to the brain) mean that the USAF has a 50/50 of bombing our cities and in my son's lifetime.

 

Come the day, I'm sure we'll be very pleased to see you.

[Toxn]

13 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Hey buddy, how bout you stop worrying about this

 

 

And start worrying about this

 

 

It's all good though, we Americans know from experience in WWI, Europe and Asia in the '40s, and all over the world during the Cold War - in fact, the entire previous 100 years have been nothing but this - that when big bad countries start getting too greedy and mean, the rest of the world will want us there. And we'll oblige, cuz we're just cool like that.

 

 

I feel safer already:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/21/map-the-u-s-currently-has-troops-in-these-african-countries/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.9fc646749139

[Collimatrix]

9 minutes ago, Toxn said:

 

 

For myself; I think I'm also subconsciously contemplating a world where countries don't seem to be able to put themselves back together after being torn apart. And here's this... thing roaming the earth, that is peerless in power but can only destroy. And it can't seem to stop itself.

 

 

 

Pff.  That implies that we want to stop.



THE WARS WILL END WHEN ALL HUMAN LIFE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES (AND DETROIT) IS REDUCED TO A UNIFORM LEVEL OF SUBSISTENCE-FARMING MISERY SUSTAINED ONLY BY OUR FOREIGN AID WHICH WILL BE MIXED RANDOMLY WITH DRONE STRIKES.

[Bronezhilet]

Bitch please your aid is drone strikes