Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
rolex replica-
rolex replica watches-
best replica watches-
watches-
diamond watches-
replica watches-
rolex watches-
watches online-
timex watches-
ladies watch-
luxury watch-
wrist watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
ladies watch-
men's watch-
wrist watches-
replica watches-
fine watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
replica rolex watches-
rolex watch-

Posted by: luxury watch at April 21, 2009 03:17 AM

It should be remembered that the US does not entirely have to go it alone with respect to potential future confrontations. Allies like Australia should also be equipped with the best possible aircraft (F22) to extend the sphere of influence of the US, as well as to protect the Pacific region. The USAF and RAAF can and should work co jointly to discourage regional adventurism. Australian's have stood shoulder to shoulder with the US through various conflicts and our culture, values and democratic principles mirror your own. The US should deploy large numbers of the F22 and should also export it to close and trusted allies. Failure to do so is likely to result in future catastrophe.

Posted by: stoka at April 4, 2009 04:10 AM

Let's see, F15's falling out of the sky; F16's being used up; F22's and F35's not ready for combat and we are involved in two ground wars where we need air-to-ground support.

Where are the new A-10's?

Posted by: Skred at May 17, 2008 10:54 PM

Cole,

Yes defense spending is part of the GDP but defense spending as a % of the GDP is DOWN. Even if you INCLUDE the supplimentary spending on the "wars" in Iraq & Afghanistan. Defense spending as a % of the GDP was 4.9% in 1980. For the FY2009 budget a mear 3.43% excluding additional war funding & 4.73% including all war/homeland security funding. If we were spending the same % on defense as we did in 1980 the defense budget would be $736 billion instead of $515 billion (or $711 billion including all additional war/homeland security. funding). Just as another example, the 8.1% of 1970 would be $1216 billion!

No, knowing you are getting that better product DOES NOT mean you must acknowledge that you need far fewer to accomplish the same job. Not when the "job" is defense against a threat which itself has gotten & is getting better products...

True we don't need 750 F-22s (we only NEED about half that many) BUT I love how you point out that our F-22s will be backed up by F-35s but conveniently neglect that our F-15s have been backed up by F-16s...OR that what people like you who bring up the F-35 when making some BS claim about how few F-22s we need that our F-35s will/would be plenty busy doing their own jobs so if you are going to use F-35s to do the F-22's jobs you will need more F-35s (& more F-35s than F-22s).

Posted by: pfcem at May 16, 2008 04:44 PM

sanity,

Get your facts correct.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#ref-1

Posted by: pfcem at May 16, 2008 03:59 PM

pfcem:"Try reading your sources correctly. We did not produre 112 F-15 in 1980 for $2.676 billion.

As of Jan 1980, SALES of the F-15s TO OTHER NATIONS totaled 112 aircraft at a cost of $2.6758 billion (no indication as to if that total is constant dollars or just adding up the numbers). In 1980, the US procured 60 F-15."
-----------------------------------
I was getting hurried out the door and did not read the global security link correctly.

Nevertheless, do we not typically sell fighters to foreign nations for the same or more than what we pay for them? So were the 60 purchased in 1980 not running at about that price?

Unlike you, I'm not a comptroller/economist/engineer, but do have several successful semesters of calculus under my belt. Common sense math would tell you that GDP includes consumer spending for rent and investment spending includes monies spent on new housing...both of which have risen much much faster than inflation since 1980. The same is true for medical expenditures. Government spending is another part of GDP...so you are effectively giving credit to the economy when the government goes on a spending spree as it tends to do as of late.

The true measure is inflation related to consumer prices for typical...not atypical items. True, if we produced F-22s at the same rate that we did F-15s the prices would come down. Suspect it would only mean we are paying twice as much for a fighter in 2008 that we did in 1980 in constant dollars. Even the F-35 will cost more than a F-15 in constant dollars.

There is nothing wrong with these aircraft costing so much more if you are getting a much better product. But knowing you are getting that better product means you must acknowledge that you need far fewer to accomplish the same job.

750 F-15s were adequate for the Soviet threat. 250 or so F-22 would be adequate for the Soviet threat if it still existed given the aircraft's superb capabilities. But we don't face anything like a Soviet threat for the next 20 years during which time we will also produce huge numbers of F-35s to back up the F-22s.

Posted by: Cole at May 16, 2008 09:09 AM

Open the bag and let the worms loose!
If long range planning and procurement is not done, there will be a repeat of past mistakes all over again. The past and current system is too slow to respond properly to "new/changed requirements" identified by actual war experience.

In addition, about a decade ago, the military, for various reasons, scrapped a lot of "obsolete" spares. These were needed to sustain older weapon systems through the planned and unplanned length of the remaining system life. Usage for planning & disposal was based upon peacetime usage rates. (Idiotic, don't you think?) So, when the current debacles stretched out to multiple years, the spares are, naturally, inadequate. The military now faces the dual requirements for old system spares, and, at the same time, providing new systems and spares, since many of the old systems are past "end of life" by decades.

And, there is never enough funding to go around.

Posted by: Charlie at May 16, 2008 04:41 AM

You want to spend MORE money? The US spends as much on defense as every other country combined, and we need to spend more? Guess what, right now your Chinese doppelganger is saying that China must spend more on defense because they are vastly outspent by the US. Same with Russia. Same with India. Same with Iran. If you and they both got your way, well then, you would now need to spend even more on the military to counter these new threats. That ends only with everyone spending every dollar they make on military items. How much are you willing to spend, when the US already spends so much? We spend as much of the GDP on defense as we did in the Cold War, and don't tell me that we now face comparable threats now. The threats we face now are trivial in comparison. We don't need F-22s. We don't need FCS. We don't need carriers. We didn't need to invade Iraq, and yes that was obvious at the time even without the resources available to the federal government.

Posted by: sanity at May 16, 2008 04:07 AM

Cole,

Try reading your sources correctly. We did not produre 112 F-15 in 1980 for $2.676 billion.

As of Jan 1980, SALES of the F-15s TO OTHER NATIONS totaled 112 aircraft at a cost of $2.6758 billion (no indication as to if that total is constant dollars or just adding up the numbers). In 1980, the US procured 60 F-15.

http://www.afa.org/EdOp/National_Journal_Charts.pdf

You can't build new F-15s for 2.607 inflation only adjustment from 1980 to 2008 today. And of course if we were procuring F-22s at the rate we procured F-15s, they would cost A LOT less than they do at the rate we have been procuring them at.

Somehow I knew you wouldn't get what the data from the link I provided is saying. Those numbers are 2000 Constant Dollars adjusted. Take away the adjustment & you get...

$05,221.3 in 2000 dollars = $02,498.46 in 1980 dollars
$11,693.1 in 2000 dollars = $14,587.38 in 2008 dollars

So while inflation alone results in a difference between 1980 & 2008 of a factor of 2.607, GDP rose by a factor of 5.839 (2.24 MORE than inflation alone). As I said, income has increased & at a rate GREATER than inflation.

Posted by: pfcem at May 15, 2008 10:45 PM

I see that in 1980 we bought 112 F-15s for 2.676 billion which is 23.8 million a piece.

I see from the GDP link that the Jan 2008 GDP was 11.7 Trillion and the Jan 1980 GDP was 5.2 trillion...a difference of a factor of 2.25. So 2.25 times $23.8 million equals $53.55 million per airplane....not 160 million....

Posted by: Cole at May 15, 2008 07:15 PM

"While we do currently have "all the stuff you need to win 4 gen war", the majority of it is now more than 20 years old & WILL be (if not already) in need of replacement. And not having the stuff you need to win 4 gen war will be MANY TIMES more costly in a possible (or as history tells us LIKELY) future 4 gen war then not having the "right" stuff for the current conflict."\
---------------------------
Sorry if I misinterpreted the above. I'm all for the F-22 and F-35...just not too many of them. If you own fewer, you can add more bells and whistles to them at less cost....and still have money left over for other committments.

Posted by: Cole at May 15, 2008 07:00 PM

Cole,

Recall how the inflation analysis you did a while back comparing 1960 prices to today's prices was & still is utter nonsense. Inflation is only ONE factor in today's higher prices. Even if one where stupid enough to procure 1960's fighters today, you can't build an 1960's fighter today for $20 million per fighter much less a VASTLY more complex & more capable modern fighter.

Guess what, US government income IS not the same as it was in 1980 (even AFTER adjusting for inflation). ;)

http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=354

Nobody in there right mind would expect to win the 24 Hours of Le Mans today (even IF they were allowed to - which they wouldn't) in a Shelby Cobra even if it were in better condition today than the day it rolled off the assembly line.

Why do people like you insist on misrepresenting what other people say? I said, 'Our current "enemies" CAN NOT defeat us (they can hardly even hurt us) militarily.' Where did I say you need F-22s to fight 4th generation warfare?

Posted by: pfcem at May 15, 2008 06:36 PM

BTW pfcem, you do not need F-22s to fight 4th generation warfare...that's for 3rd generation war.

It cracked me up to watch History channel the other day where authors of a "future" warfare book had 3 scenarios in the next 20 years where hordes of enemy planes suddenly attacked for no apparent reason with no explanation of goals or intent.

One of the scenarios had F-22s firing multiple AMRAAM with 2 "B-1R" firing salvoes of additional AMRRAM missiles...kind of like current F-15s/F-16s/F-18s could do from well behind the F-22/F-35s when fed targets.

Needless to say we won....against the entire top- of-the-line fighter fleets of 95% of our potential adversaries....about 30-50 good aircraft....cuz that's all they can afford/train/maintain. The rest is junk.

Posted by: Cole at May 15, 2008 03:53 PM

pfcem,
Our current foe CAN hurt us because they are the type of terrorists who would put a blow a small nuke in a coastal U.S. city in a heartbeat...killing millions to double/quadruple the WWII death total in one strike.

No nation-state would ever do that because they know what the response would be.

Posted by: Cole at May 15, 2008 03:43 PM

Lanning,
How is China going to deny us the sea with 5 knot submarines? How will a country that size survive without oil should they become the aggressor and WE deny them sea-shipped oil. How could China invade any distant powerful neighbor...whereas in the days of 6.5% GDP spending, the far-more powerful Soviets could simply motor across their borders and be in the heart of Europe.

Near as I can tell, we can fight two wars right now...cuz we are doing it. Is the new standard to fight 3 wars?

I scoff at war with China because they want our money...and want to mimic our might and standing in the world. It's a keeping face thing.

Posted by: Cole at May 15, 2008 03:38 PM

CTR1(SW),
Recall the inflation analysis I did a while back comparing 1960 prices to today's prices? It predicted that we should be paying $20 million per fighter instead of $160 per F-22.

So my answer to you on your car comparison is that you cannot expect to buy a fleet of cars in 1980 for $10K each and expect that 25 years later with the same income you can purchase the same size fleet of $200K Ferraris...instead of inflation-adjusted $25K fleet cars.

I would also submit there are plenty of folks who would happily drive 40 year old Shelby Cobras if they have been properly maintained...as Air Force jets are.

Posted by: Cole at May 15, 2008 03:29 PM

The bottom line is not adequately funding it's military. We have to be able to fight both conventional war and a unconventional war simutaneously . As for people who scoff about a potential war with China. Well there were people who thought a war with japan would not happen either. Do you think that the Chinese are investing huge amounts of money and resources in systems to deny us the sea, for no reason? Think People. Special Operations are not going to win that one. We need both capabilities. It boils down to having the political courage to cultivate the necessary resources. Gee, i seem to remember in 1985 we were about 6.5% of GDP on defense. The time is now.

Posted by: Lanning at May 14, 2008 08:38 PM

For all of you folks who want to sacrifice the future at the expense of today I have a question. Would you drive a 30 year old car on which you are constantly spending thousands in repairs when you could purchase a brand new one?
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ASKING THE AF TO DO WITH THE F-15 AND F-16!

Imagine being an AF pilot in a plane older than you are.

p.s. I am currently driving a vintage 1990 car with 170k miles. Some problems are not worth fixing and some cannot be fixed. I would by newer in a minute, if I could.

Posted by: CTR1(SW) at May 14, 2008 07:19 PM

Gates is my hero. Finally, some common sense. We don't need Buck Rogers. We need reliable technology that works. Now.

Posted by: KZ at May 14, 2008 06:52 PM

I just finished watching the movie "Cloverfield." With the current state of our military,if a "monster" actually came out of the ocean & threatened New York City,would our military even be able to piss it off,much less "slightly" irritate it(come on,I understand that the plot of these movies is that conventional weapons cannot seem to hurt these monsters,but I'm just saying that our military would have problems with Barney."I love you,you love me.....")?

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 14, 2008 06:31 PM

From an Aussien perspective the role of defence is protection of your national interests with the counttry first. The U.S can deploy anywhere because it has the biggest gorillas to do the job. Gates is just trying to cut the budget. With F-22s you OWN the sky, so can pursue the ground battle with the need for only limited ground based air defense assets. That saves a squillion - ask the Russians how much they invested in ground based air defence during the Cold War and the opportunity cost of those DEFENSIVE systems.

Keep those Ford class aircraft carriers and DDG51s coming. Why is China investing so much in defensive anti-carrier systems? Because it fears what those bad boys can do. Problem is for China all the support systems on board its escorting ships and on the carrier eg the E2D Hawkeye. Did did I mention the possibility of a SDB equipped B-2 or F-22 flying nearby or the Ohio class SSN with all those Tomahawk cruise misiles lurking off the coast. Any way you look at it, its the bigger and better system systems that allow the US to pursue its interests. Cutting them down is a false economy.

There is a need a smaller littoral vessel but you just OWN the sea with the current sytems. Look at the updated ANZAC frigates as a guide to a littoral system with excellent sensors and firepower on a smaller hull.
Cheers,
GI Zhou

Posted by: GI Zhou at May 14, 2008 04:56 PM

"And don't forget that one of the primary reasons why we are currently fighting a "low intensity" conflict in Iraq now is because we WON the "high intensity" conflict in 2003."

About spells it out in black and white, good luck convincing the Ron Paul Revolutionaries.

Posted by: Brad at May 14, 2008 02:45 PM

slntax,

Gates is WRONG when you get it thru your head the actual situation, aka the current enemy/conflict IS NOT a major military threat! And that the changes that would do the most to improve the current situation are MUCH more in the realm of policy/procedure/tactics than equipment.

Actually we are fighting ONE war on many fronts & we ARE winning on the two most active/visible fronts (Afghanistan & Iraq).

NOBODY is saying that we do not need to concentrate on the current conflict &/or that we do not need to fight the current conflict differently than "conventional" conflict. But WE DO NOT need to weaken/sacrifice our ability to fight a major "conventional" conflict to better fight the current one.

And don't forget that one of the primary reasons why we are currently fighting a "low intensity" conflict in Iraq now is because we WON the "high intensity" conflict in 2003. Or that one of the reasons why we so handily won that "high intensity" conflict was because of the superiority of our "conventional" forces (due in no small part to having defeated the Iraq forces in 1991).

In fact THE biggest problem we have had in the current conflict is that in recognizing that we need to fight it differently we (the politicians, not the soldiers) have been reluctant/unwilling to actually FIGHT. If we had done what we SHOULD have in 2003/2004, we could have been where we are today in 2004/2005. Instead we half-assed it for 4 years before we (the politicians, not the soldiers) finally got the will to do what we SHOULD have been doing.

While we do currently have "all the stuff you need to win 4 gen war", the majority of it is now more than 20 years old & WILL be (if not already) in need of replacement. And not having the stuff you need to win 4 gen war will be MANY TIMES more costly in a possible (or as history tells us LIKELY) future 4 gen war then not having the "right" stuff for the current conflict.

Note that much of the "right stuff" that would improve the current conflict would do so for a future 4 gen war as well but SOME would not. Things like a more effective rifle/carbine cartridge, an actual armored fighting/security vehicle instead of using HMMWVs for what they were not built for, a comparatively inexpensive littoral-oriented combat vessel, more emphasis on CAS, NFS...

Posted by: pfcem at May 14, 2008 02:30 PM

If the military-industrial complex that's been running things for the past 50+ yrs had been in charge in the 1930's we'd have been screwed, blued and tatooed in WW2. They couldn't have fielded the weapons we needed in time, and we couldn't have paid for them. I don't know if Gates is correct or not, but some of the calls here for increased military spending seem a little simplistic. Let's see some smarter spending first.

Posted by: Tom Fitzpatrick in Seattle at May 14, 2008 02:22 PM

"all you guys that believe that gates is wrong i ask you how many days have so spent on the ground in the 2 war zones we have going on?"

Wow, a chickenhawk argument! IGM, f#$%er, I Got Mine.

But I'll even do you a bit of a favor and just humor your argument; that we will never ever ever fight another conventional warfare. And I'll point to the Banana Wars as small scale insurgencies we fought from the Philippines to Nicaragua, most of which stretched on for decades.

But we DID fight another large war, WWII. And because we didn't invest in the best, we had some very dark days in the beginning.

Conventional forces are more deadly than any unconventional force. Just one fighter squadron could kill more soldiers, sailors, and Marines in the first day of combat than the last twenty years abroad. That's why air superiority is vital. That's why you're wrong.

PS. Capital letters. Learn to use them.

Posted by: Brad at May 14, 2008 12:53 PM

So what is Gates really talking about here? It's what you think the future is going to be like.
The political reality is that no matter which party controls Congress there will not be a big increase in defense spending beyond the 1 that has already happened. There will not be a draft. So when the economy is good again, you're going to have a hard time recruiting enough people to maintain 1,500,000 in all 4 services, let alone expand.
So what do YOU think the future will be like? A "big" war against a country whose economy is built around selling consumer goods to, well, us? Or a dozen small wars across the globe, all going on simultaneously?
You have to ready for anything that happens, but within the bounds of what you can afford, both in money & in people, you better focus on the likely.

Posted by: Hooded swan at May 14, 2008 12:09 PM

i cant believe this. gates is right when will you guys get it thru your head WE ARE IN 2 WARS NOW AND WE ARE NOT WINNING. and everyone wants talk about the next war? what about the wars we have now? all the stuff you need to win 4 gen war already exist. thats the problem for all those generals that dont want to fight the wars we have now is they cant get kickbacks for some overpriced high tech pos when they retire and work for Lockheed, boeing, and gdls. all you guys that believe that gates is wrong i ask you how many days have so spent on the ground in the 2 war zones we have going on?

Posted by: slntax at May 14, 2008 10:26 AM

I agree with the finance argument. There is plenty of money, it just takes some guts to put the money where it needs to be. I fail to see the need to be spending a billion or two a year on UN peacekeeping support when most of the missions are overwhelming failures. I don't think we need to be bailing out idiots in upside down mortgages that were foolish with their money, financial natural selection to me. With social security a mess candidates talking about universal healthcare make me feverish. We have plenty of money to buy every new (proven/good) system we need. We have all the money we need to set our Army and Marines at a good level.

Posted by: vince at May 14, 2008 10:08 AM

As long as this somehow results in our guys getting 416's, Dragonskin armor, and Multicam, I really couldn't care less whether or not Gates is off his rocker in terms of military philosophy or not.

The Rifleman is the heart of this war, just as he's the heart of every war, and we've ignored his needs and plight for too long.

Posted by: Narfburger at May 14, 2008 07:30 AM

pfcem to the rescue of common sense. Our liabilities for Medicare alone are higher than 40 TRILLION dollars, but somehow we cannot afford a couple of billion to replace our fighter fleet.

Let's cut the garbage out before we cut our own throats. And don't give me the peaceful rise of China routine; when they start acting like a peaceful country, I'll start believing it.

Posted by: Brad at May 14, 2008 12:40 AM

There are two reasons why these statements by Gates are idiocy rather than "common sense".

1) Our current "enemies" CAN NOT defeat us (they can hardly even hurt us) militarily. Yes we need to fight our current "enemies" differently than "conventional" enemies (although one of the biggest problems we have had is fighting our current "enemies" half-assed) but their military capabilities DO NOT justify sacrificing our future ability to fight a more "conventional" enemy.

The MRAP vehicles are a prime example of this. FINALLY more & more poeple are beginning to realize that despite how good they are against one specific type of threat (IEDs), they have their limitations & are actually NOT the right vehicles for many situations (to the point that they are more of a liability than an asset).

2) Due to the "peace dividend" from the end of the cold war the VAST majority of our current weapons systems were procured in the 1980's! While you can upgrade weapons systems with newer technology there is a limit to how much you can do so & still keep pace. PLUS weapons systems, no matter how much you upgrade them, can only remain viable (economically &/or physically) to a point before they HAVE to be replaced.

***

gergyrrab,

We NEED the F-22 because our existing F-15s will not be able to fly forever & are overdue for replacement (the YOUNGEST F-15C/Ds are over 20 years old & quickly approaching DOUBLE their originally intended airframe flight hour lives). Despite what some may want you to think, air superiority (air dominace) is still & will continue to be VERY important.

Actually we have MORE than enough money to gibve our armed force all they want & more, it is just that those who control the purse strings won't give them the money & instead spend it on pork. Case in point: the $30 billion used to bailout Bear Stearns could procure 200 F-22s! Do you not realize that US defense spending as a % of GDP has been at historic lows?

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php
It only goes to 2003 but does give a good idea of how COMPARATIVELY little we have been spending of defense.

http://libertatemamo.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/picture-3.jpg
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php
Small but goes to 2007.

Posted by: pfcem at May 13, 2008 11:16 PM

This line of discussion is silly. Where are the realities of the budget and the real threat. Why do we need a fleet of F-22's, except to provide the next generation of AF generals their cavalry to get slaughtered by the next generation of machine guns.

We don't have the money to give them their dream mounts anymore. At least in the quantity that they feel are needed. As Stalin said, 'quantity has a quality of its own'.

Posted by: gergyrrab at May 13, 2008 08:06 PM

Gates is the only SecDef to make Rumsfeld look like a hero.

I guess we should be remaking the DOD into a 2 million man police force to arrest villagers with pitchforks.

"Going forward, such weapons programs will have show they can be useful now against terror groups and insurgents, he said."

Really? We don't need no subs then, and ELINT is garbage, probably can drop the soap with the V-22, good bye F-22, good bye EFV.

You know what was a good army? Vietnam, baby. Let's go back to F-4s and Hueys, bringing back the oldies! And Shermans too. Let's trifecta this jagoff.

Posted by: Brad at May 13, 2008 06:00 PM

Finally someone with common sense in the pentagon! Are brave guys are dying over there and we should do EVERYTHING to support them!

Spending billions on developeing phaser rifles and quantum torpedos for a future war with aliens doesn't make much sense today.

lenn

Posted by: lenn at May 13, 2008 05:43 PM

Gates is spot on. The notion that the Department of Defense spending, and our national tax/non-defense spending so continue on a business as usual basis when we are fighting two regional wars is absurd.

Posted by: ohwilleke at May 13, 2008 05:42 PM

Its sad when common sense becomes newsworthy, but after Rummy common sense is refreshing.

You fight and win the war you in, before you start buying for the next *possible* war. Simple stuff. I'm glad he said it.

The Air Force and Navy need to take it to heart and actually comprehend what it means. Focus on today doofus, not on next year. Once the shooting stops and *this* war is over, then you can go back to dreaming up reasons for the shiny gadget in the catalog you are sure you need.

How about we get all the broken gear fixed or replaced, get the Guard, Reserves, Active forces and MPS/prepositioned caches restocked to pre-war levels, and actually finish fighting the current war(s) before we start any new procurement program that requires billions and billions of R&D work up front? You know, pay the current bills before taking on a whole new money-sucking investment?

Good for Gates. I like him more and more.

Posted by: KragCulloden at May 13, 2008 05:30 PM

Just some conjecture, but the first thing I thought of when I read his speech was maybe he's reading some budgetary tea leaves and trying to soften a few blows about new weapons.

Posted by: TB at May 13, 2008 05:24 PM

The next-war-itis do have a valid point. If we focus all our energy on counter-insurgency, then our conventional forces lose their deterent capablity and the liklyhood of a future conventional conflict increases. If we don't modernize our conventional forces, it is a real possibility that we could be dealt an embarrassing military defeat. Not that this is all Gate's fault, however. It's obsurd that we are spending less than 4% GDP on military when we've been at war for seven years. Congress should increase funding to at least 4.5% so we can focus on both needs.

Posted by: knight109 at May 13, 2008 05:22 PM

The next-war-itis do have a valid point. If we focus all our energy on counter-insurgency, then our conventional forces lose their deterent capablity and the liklyhood of a future conventional conflict increases. If we don't modernize our conventional forces, it is a real possibility that we could be dealt an embarrassing military defeat. Not that this is all Gate's fault, however. It's obsurd that we are spending less than 4% GDP on military when we've been at war for seven years. Congress should increase funding to at least 4.5% so we can focus on both needs.

Posted by: knight109 at May 13, 2008 05:21 PM

The next-war-itis do have a valid point. If we focus all our energy on counter-insurgency, then our conventional forces lose their deterent capablity and the liklyhood of a future conventional conflict increases. If we don't modernize our conventional forces, it is a real possibility that we could be dealt an embarrassing military defeat. Not that this is all Gate's fault, however. It's obsurd that we are spending less than 4% GDP on military when we've been at war for seven years. Congress should increase funding to at least 4.5% so we can focus on both needs.

Posted by: C4Casey at May 13, 2008 05:20 PM

The next-war-itis do have a valid point. If we focus all our energy on counter-insurgency, then our conventional forces lose their deterent capablity and the liklyhood of a future conventional conflict increases. If we don't modernize our conventional forces, it is a real possibility that we could be dealt an embarrassing military defeat. Not that this is all Gate's fault, however. It's obsurd that we are spending less than 4% GDP on military when we've been at war for seven years. Congress should increase funding to at least 4.5% so we can focus on both needs.

Posted by: C4Casey at May 13, 2008 05:20 PM

Gates is greatest Sec Def ever. He is right. Could have used him instead of Rummy's RMA BS.

Limited resources is the key. Imagine, actually having to be strategic and make hard choices about what is needed and what is a fantasy, like WW3 with China or the infinite apocalyptic 'what if' scenarios people dream up. Mainly the AF, and Navy sub community whom have not come to grips with reality.

It is not really a 'here and now' vs the unknown all or nothing scenario. There will be a delicate balance. But, the needs of the here and now, and most likely future do take precedent over the unknown, which by its very nature cannot be planned for. Whatever happens in the future, the Pentagon would have bought and trained the wrong things anyway, as has happened every conflict.

Although if the rest of the US Gov was not so incompetent and risk averse, they could relieve the DoD of many of their current non-kinetic duties, which are more important in 4GW, than killing people.

It feels like Gen McCaffrey vs Col HR McMaster. I am with the Col McMaster myself.

Posted by: HumanPestControl at May 13, 2008 05:10 PM

I believe Gates is WRONG.

As I was first reading it I was thinking he was going to state something about not going to war with Iran.

Yes, the U.S. doesn't need to be looking for the next war.

However it needs to be preparing for the next war and right now, a lot of manpower has been robbed from other arms to kick down doors in Operation: Useless Dirt 1 & 2. Two operations that bring nothing to the table for defending the U.S. but do suck down 12 -15 billion per month funded by foreign credit.

Gates and England have to go. As do some other people. The National Guard needs manpower and re-equipping to be a National Guard, not yet another arm to do expeditionary war. The Marines need recapitalization of equipment, The Navy, if it can, needs to find a tough, cheap frigate to build and a list of other things to get away from gold plated ships. And the USAF needs a new boss and stfu and buy only aircraft that are currently in production or it is going to be in huge trouble inside of ten years. Oh well, I guess if a weapon system is expensive and gold-plated, it must be good. Meanwhile we get bigger in debt. Unsustainable.

Posted by: ELP at May 13, 2008 05:03 PM

I read numerous articles about Secretary Gates speech several hours ago. You are leaving out some key parts of the speech.

Speaking about overstressed ground forces, Gates said the ground component "would be hard-pressed to launch a major conventional ground operation elsewhere in the world at this time" but that those scenarios were unlikely and that U.S. air and seapower could "defeat any-repeat any-adversary who committed an act of aggression-whether in the Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula, or in the Straits of Taiwan."

He also praised the MRAP saying that of 150 attacks on them so far, all but 6 Soldiers survived....which is less than a third of the 22% casualty rate for troops attacked in HMMWVs.

An Army LTC spokesman later in the day said, "We hear him loud and clear and we're doing what he wants." That no doubt refers to the accelerated programs and spin-outs that FCS is working on as we speak. These will help the current Soldiers equipped with current Bradley's, HMMWVs, and Abrams.

LTG Vane also said in a Pentagon interview: "Tomorrow's readiness is influenced by today's capabilities. The Future Combat System is relevant in today's battles as well as for tomorrow's."

Posted by: Cole at May 13, 2008 05:03 PM

What an idiot.

It's not equipment that is hampering the war on terror. No advanced system is going to make it any easier to catch a suicide bomber.

"The F-22 must be useful against insurgents for it to be viable"??? Damn, that's stupid. I guess the Navy can kiss their aircraft carriers goodbye. I guess ballistic missile defense is useless, as is our entire nuclear arsenal.

Posted by: Brian at May 13, 2008 04:50 PM

I don't think there is any more proof needed as to how incompetent Robert Gates is as a Defense Secretary.

Posted by: pfcem at May 13, 2008 04:04 PM