2pid and defense spending

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

I've asked 2pid several times where he'd cut defense spending. I've
offered several areas to cut including the White Elephant F-22, the
new fleets of supercarriers that the Navy is set to spend $100 billion
developing, and others. 2pid's "chirps" indicate that he feels
spending is fine right where it is. Bratzi even offered several areas
that cuts could be investigated. But 2pid cannot bring himself to even
mention one area to cut.

2pid whined today about the President's entourage in Great Britain. "A
boondoggle", he called it. Boy, was he mad!

Here's another "boondoggle" brewing, 2pid. It's time to get really,
REALLY mad!

"There has been debate regarding follow-on orders for the C-17, with
the Air Force requesting line shutdown, and members of Congress
attempting to reinstate production."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globemaster_III

Now, as one who is as opposed to "earmarks" and "pork" as 2pid is (or
claims to be. We know that 2pid doesn't always tell us what he really
means), this will no doubt cause him to try to get off his lead-filled
ass and actually do something for once. Congress is forcing something
on the military that the military doesn't want! (They've done this
several times in the past too!)

So 2pid will have the C-17 Globemaster III as his battle cry of
action! Or not. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> So 2pid will have the C-17 Globemaster III as his battle cry of
> action! Or not. LoL.

Witless's puling aside, what does the Air Force want instead? Don't they
still need jumbo cargo planes?

BTW, Scottie is confused about the meaning of the question mark (?).
He uses it after non-interrogative sentences, but of course he complains
when others do the exact same thing. So it's possible he mistakes the
human-style use of the question mark as conveying a command or other
verb mood.


--

" This one was highlighted by MM to draw attention while I think
it's not the most aggregious provision but it still has issues."

-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, self-described excellent writer, Feb. 22 2009

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 31, 4:11*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > So 2pid will have the C-17 Globemaster III as his battle cry of
> > action! Or not. LoL.
>
> Witless's puling aside, what does the Air Force want instead? Don't they
> still need jumbo cargo planes?

Apparently they feel they have enough to accomplish whatever missions
they have. They don't need more of them in their view. They have to
budget for maintenance, training, upgrades, staffing, and so on. It
isn't just the raw cost of the aircraft.

IIRC Congress did the same thing regarding either the B-1 or B-2
bomber. The Air Force said they didn't want and more of them but
whoever was the Congressman from the district they were made in felt
otherwise.

Now why doesn't 2pid get really REALLY mad about that pork? LoL.

> BTW, Scottie is confused about the meaning of the question mark (?).
> He uses it after non-interrogative sentences, but of course he complains
> when others do the exact same thing. So it's possible he mistakes the
> human-style use of the question mark as conveying a command or other
> verb mood.

I think that 2pid are a imbecile?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 1, 2:44*am, wrote:
> *I've long advocated that the US come up with an integrated heavy lift
> cargo air mobility program. Key points:
>
> *1) Make the airlines buy roll-on, roll-off cargo aircraft that can be
> quickly leased by the military to do the lion's share of the heavy
> airlift we would need in actual combat operations while a) not being
> an expensive albatross at all other times and b) encourage expedited
> air freight for big items now needing awkward permit hauling by truck
> by US carriers or, rather than bringing in outfits like AirFoyle.

They are not the same types of aircraft. Have you ever noticed that
most airliners (some regional jets in civilian service are high-
winged) have wings beneath the fuselage and military transports have
wings above the fuselage? There's a reason for that. I'm sure you know
this, yes? (If you did you wouldn't make this suggestion though.)

"Aircraft designed for cargo flight use have a number of features that
distinguish them from conventional passenger aircraft: a "fat" looking
fuselage, a high-wing to allow the cargo area to sit near the ground,
a large number of wheels to allow it to land at unprepared locations,
and a high-mounted tail to allow cargo to be driven directly into and
off the aircraft."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_aircraft

"In a few special cases, where engine proximity to ground is
detrimental (e.g. rural airfields with risk of foreign object damage
or dirt), airliners will feature tail-mounted engines (e.g. MD-80 or
Tu-334) or high-wing designs with underhung nacelles (e.g. BAE-146).
These planes become rarer every year as almost all newly-built
airliners have underwing nacelles. Tail-engined designs are mostly
used by business jet manufacturers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner#Layout

Further, Military jets are generally not subject to noise standards
like civilian aircraft are. And the Air National Guard and Air Force
Reserve are efficient ways to keep trained crews ready. The reserve
branches are cheap for the government and is one reason that 50% of
deployments are typically Reserve or Guard.

> *2) Buy an existing airframe, such as the Antonov 124, under a deal
> that would in essence trade US avionics and engines for the Eastern
> Bloc airframe, a win-win creating jobs for both sides.

Why do that when we already have a fleet of Globemaster IIIs? They are
sufficient to carry anything the Army needs airlifted.

> *3. Have USAFR AMC and ANG *directly commission, or warrant, aircrews
> for transports from the airline pool. Active scheduled air carrier
> crews with minimum standards (ATP and type rating, hours in type,
> etc.) would be commissioned and trained without the ridiculous expense
> of UPT, which is at its essence designed to produce fighter pilots.

That's not true. It's designed to provide training to all pilots while
separating them based on abilities and performance.

> *4. When airliner markets are poor-such as, after 9/11 and in the
> upcoming deprssion-buy midtime airliner airframes off the market at
> just-over-market values. The 747s should be repurposed for special air
> missions or parted out and scrapped, to keep them from being cargo
> conversions and driving cargo aircraft prices up to encourage buying
> roll-on, roll-off heavy haulers. The midsize aircraft should be
> converted into tankers and the KC-135 fleet scrapped.

What a wonderful idea except that it isn't.

Other than that it's perfect.

Stay with stuff you know, Bratzi, like racism. You and 2pid can always
'intelligently' discuss the military. LoL.

[[email protected]]

On 1 Apr, 03:44, wrote:
> *I've long advocated that the US come up with an integrated heavy lift
> cargo air mobility program. Key points:
>
> *1) Make the airlines buy .......

Welcome to the world of Socialism, Bratzi


..
>
> *2) Buy an existing airframe, such as the Antonov 124, under a deal
> that would in essence trade US avionics and engines for the Eastern
> Bloc airframe, a win-win creating jobs for both sides.


what "eastern bloc"?
it is 2009.



>
> *3. Have USAFR AMC and ANG *directly commission, or warrant, aircrews
> for transports from the airline pool. Active scheduled air carrier
> crews with minimum standards (ATP and type rating, hours in type,
> etc.) would be commissioned and trained without the ridiculous expense
> of UPT, which is at its essence designed to produce fighter pilots.
>

impress civilians into military service,
we fought the revolution for this?




> *4. When airliner markets are poor-such as, after 9/11 and in the
> upcoming deprssion-buy midtime airliner airframes off the market at
> just-over-market values. The 747s should be repurposed for special air
> missions or parted out ......


yes, replace worn parts with other used parts, attaceh them woth duct
tape, if necessary.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 1, 3:35*pm, wrote:
> On Apr 1, 4:10*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 2:44*am, wrote:
>
> > > *I've long advocated that the US come up with an integrated heavy lift
> > > cargo air mobility program. Key points:
>
> > > *1) Make the airlines buy roll-on, roll-off cargo aircraft that can be
> > > quickly leased by the military to do the lion's share of the heavy
> > > airlift we would need in actual combat operations while a) not being
> > > an expensive albatross at all other times and b) encourage expedited
> > > air freight for big items now needing awkward permit hauling by truck
> > > by US carriers or, rather than bringing in outfits like AirFoyle.
>
> > They are not the same types of aircraft. Have you ever noticed that
> > most airliners (some regional jets in civilian service are high-
> > winged) have wings beneath the fuselage and military transports have
> > wings above the fuselage? There's a reason for that. I'm sure you know
> > this, yes? (If you did you wouldn't make this suggestion though.)
>
> > "Aircraft designed for cargo flight use have a number of features that
> > distinguish them from conventional passenger aircraft: a "fat" looking
> > fuselage, a high-wing to allow the cargo area to sit near the ground,
> > a large number of wheels to allow it to land at unprepared locations,
> > and a high-mounted tail to allow cargo to be driven directly into and
> > off the aircraft."
>
> *Yes, *the cargo aircraft are configured so heavy pallets or wheeled
> or tracked vehicles can be rolled in one end and out the other.
> That's exactly my point. They are more expensive than midlife
> passenger aircraft conversions, but the conversions can't haul tanks,
> vehicles bigger than pickup trucks, or high palletized loads, nor
> dismantled or folded helos or tactical jets. They also can't haul
> other outsize items either. The airlines operate on a marginal cost
> basis. like all other "free enterprise " businesses, except they
> don't: they operate in an ocean of subsidies and taxes like veryone
> else. If the fully burdened costs were billed out a ticket from NY to
> LA would be twenty thousand dollars, and that's on the red-eye. That's
> the flaw in both liberal and conservative thinking: the fully burdened
> costs of most any activity are unbelievable in a society like ours
> when that activity is analyzed in and of itself. *When you consider
> that the pressure for the US to be involved "as we are" in the Middle
> East would be ineffective ultimately if we did not "need Middle East
> oil", the fully burdened cost of a gallon of gasoline is at least ten
> dollars, because you have to put every cent we spend on military and
> civilian activities in the Middle East against the total volume of
> petroleum we get fromnot only the Middle East but all offshore
> sources: the reserves of Saudi Arabia, being cheaply liftable sweet
> crude, essentially control oil prices. Also you have to figure ALL the
> costs of 9/11 against it too, because, WE WERE ATTACKED BECAUSE OF OUR
> MIDDLE EAST POLICIES, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
>
> *Better make that twenty bucks a gallon.
>
>
>
> > > *2) Buy an existing airframe, such as the Antonov 124, under a deal
> > > that would in essence trade US avionics and engines for the Eastern
> > > Bloc airframe, a win-win creating jobs for both sides.
>
> > Why do that when we already have a fleet of Globemaster IIIs? They are
> > sufficient to carry anything the Army needs airlifted.
>
> *Right now, maybe. Down the road, no.
>
>
>
> > > *3. Have USAFR AMC and ANG *directly commission, or warrant, aircrews
> > > for transports from the airline pool. Active scheduled air carrier
> > > crews with minimum standards (ATP and type rating, hours in type,
> > > etc.) would be commissioned and trained without the ridiculous expense
> > > of UPT, which is at its essence designed to produce fighter pilots.
>
> > That's not true. It's designed to provide training to all pilots while
> > separating them based on abilities and performance.
>
> *Tommyrot. Airlines from nations without GA or a huge military outflow
> train airline pilots "ab initio", none spend more than ten percent per
> pupil as does USAF UPT and none have the washout rate. The USAF UPT
> program was designed by men who went through the "Every Man A Tiger"
> days of the early blue suit era, when blue suit base commanders might
> have graduated West Point and actually served in a horse cavalry unit.

The military doesn't mind a high washout rate, Bratzi. My OCS class
washed out 56% of the candidates.

You're focused solely on the job and not on what that job might
entail. That's because, like 2pid, you're entirely ignorant of the
military.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 1, 3:13*pm, wrote:

> *As far as "impress civilians into military service", no. It would be
> a voluntary program open to current air carrier crews. They could join
> the USAFR, USNR or *ANG as officers or warrant officers and would go
> through "boot camp" (at least of the type JAG and doctors go through,
> e.g. to make them uniformworthy) and a flight program to bring them up
> to speed. Why would they do that? Several reasons, including but not
> limited to, if the airlines tank they will have their reserve income
> to fall back on.

You have no idea what you're talking about, Bratzi.

Lawyers and doctors are not line officers. Thet need none of the
advanced training a line officer does in their specialty any more than
an artillery officer needs advanced legal or medical training.

Pilots in the military are more than bus drivers, Bratzi. And just
because someone has a multi-engine pilot's license does not mean they
have the knowledgw to function as an officer in the military. A short
boot camp on how to wear a uniform won't cut it.

Jesus. You and 2pid really feel you "know" all about the military. I
really don't suppose it would do any good to point out that neither of
you know anything about it at all.