billvon 2,478 #101 July 17, 2009 >you were talking about some mythical UAV that doesn't exist . . . ================ On 4 February 2002, an armed Predator attacked a convoy of sport utility vehicles, killing a suspected al Qaeda leader. The intelligence community initially expressed doubt that he was Osama bin Laden. On 4 March 2002, a CIA-operated Predator fired a Hellfire missile into a reinforced al Qaeda machine gun bunker that had pinned down an Army Ranger team whose CH-47 Chinook had crashed on the top of Takur Ghar Mountain in Afghanistan. =============== >shooting a missile that doesn't exist. AIM-54 Phoenix: Length 13 ft (4.0 m) Diameter 15 in (380 mm) Warhead 135 pounds (61 kg), high explosive Engine Solid propellant rocket motor Wingspan 3 ft (910 mm) Range 115+ miles Flight ceiling 100,000 ft (30 km) Flight altitude 80,000 ft (24 km) Speed Mach 5 Guidance Semi-active and active radar homing >In that case, why stop there? We shouldn't! We should keep developing military hardware, rather than assume that what we have now is the bestest ever and does not need improvement. >Speaking of strawmen... show me where I said that. Cool! So you admit that we do not need a "mach 3" fighter (which, of course, we don't have either) to engage enemy aircraft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #102 July 17, 2009 >How is the drone going to get close enough to fire, when everything >can outrun it? Patrols. It would require 5 UAV's to provide complete coverage of the west coast of the US. >Ever hear of the Foxbat, Professor? Yep! According to you, though, since we don't have mach-3 fighters, we are defenseless against them. >Ever hear of maximum range? Predator range - 2300 miles F-22 range - 1600 miles (with drop tanks) F-22 combat range - 410 miles Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #103 July 17, 2009 Quote It would require 5 UAV's to provide complete coverage of the west coast of the US. Cite? That sounds a bit optimistic. Are you talking about surveillance coverage or defense coverage?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #104 July 17, 2009 >Are you talking about surveillance coverage or defense coverage? Defensive. Each UAV would have a "defensive radius" (i.e. missile coverage) with AIM-54 missiles of 200 miles. Coast is 840 miles long; 5 UAV's would provide defensive coverage with some overlap. (Needless to say there's currently no reason to have that level of coverage, nor are current UAV's compatible with Phoenix missiles.) For surveillance, vehicles like the RQ-4 already exist and work quite well. You'd need seven to provide 100% full time coverage of the California coast. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #105 July 17, 2009 How many oncoming aircraft would they be able to take down? Just 1 for the 5 of them, or is that a complete screen against a bomber flight? If it's just 1 intruder for 5 UAV's, then the obvious next question is "how much does the UAV cost relative to the fighters to do the same work?" I bet they're cheaper. But how much? If we replaced our fighter screens with UAV's, what's the potential cost savings? And how does it effect our 42k/yr per capita tax figure?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #106 July 17, 2009 >How many oncoming aircraft would they be able to take down? Most future UAV designs I've seen carry two missiles per vehicle, so two initially, followed by another four from nearby UAV's (assuming detection at the edge of its engagement range.) >or is that a complete screen against a bomber flight? Not at all; this would merely provide a first-line-of-defense capability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #107 July 17, 2009 Quote>How is the drone going to get close enough to fire, when everything >can outrun it? Patrols. It would require 5 UAV's to provide complete coverage of the west coast of the US. >Ever hear of the Foxbat, Professor? Yep! According to you, though, since we don't have mach-3 fighters, we are defenseless against them. >Ever hear of maximum range? Predator range - 2300 miles F-22 range - 1600 miles (with drop tanks) F-22 combat range - 410 miles "If we can’t bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision [to terminate the F22 program at 187 aircraft] — reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, two different secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, and the current Air Force Secretary and Chief of Staff, where do we draw the line? And if not now, when? If we can’t get this right — what on earth can we get right? It is time to draw the line on doing Defense business as usual." SecDef Gates, 7/16/2009If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #108 July 17, 2009 Government is a trough. That's just another bit of the feeding frenzy. We wouldn't want to take the taxpayers money away from someone who might be making campaign contributions with it, would we?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #109 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe tanker is faster than the drone at refueling speed for the 'heavies', much less fighters But STILL not Mach 3, or anywhere close. So what? How is the drone going to get close enough to fire, when everything can outrun it? QuoteBesides, where are these Mach 3 warplanes of which you write?[\reply] Ever hear of the Foxbat, Professor? . What is the Foxbat's range at Mach 3? I don't know. Why do you ASSume it's going to make it's entire flight at Mach 3? QuoteIt is heavy, made of stainless steel, highly UNmaneuverable and a sitting duck for missiles. Sounds like billvon's 'super drone' X43 is fucked, then, huh? QuoteNext? Indeed - I await your "expert" reply, what with your years of experience from the military.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #110 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI know three different guys working as contractors in Iraq, and all of them make more than 100k dollars per year. Yep. Of the friends I have who have worked privately in Iraq, salaries seemed to _start_ there. Sadly, one didn't come back. When the Army's Human Terrain System converted what were previously very high-payed contractor positions (some over $300K/year, most around $200K/year) to federal civilians (less than $100K/year) an estimated 1/3 quit. /Marg And I don't blame them in the least. I've had a couple offers for the sandbox that were just under 100k base salary. Bonuses and harzard pay take it over 100k, but not enough over it to be worth being shot at with no way to defend myself.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #111 July 17, 2009 Quote From the early 1980s through mid-2000s, there was a domestic inclination to cut government size. Or cut apparent size of the federal government, e.g., no increases in federal civilians with a shift to increased reliance on contractors. A lot of that came from the military downsizing, as well - they no longer had the personnel to do everything that needed to be done, so the contractors are hired to fill the gap.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #112 July 17, 2009 Quote I don't know. Why do you ASSume it's going to make it's entire flight at Mach 3? We have this thing called radar. The slower the fighters go, the better the defensive response. You've utterly failed to show where the fuck these mach 3 jets are going to come from. Their range at any speed is far too little to deal with these massive oceans we have. The notion of an air attack is pretty ridiculous - it's crazy enough to try a naval attack or a land invasion from Mexico. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #113 July 17, 2009 Quoteshooting a missile that doesn't exist. AIM-54 Phoenix: Length 13 ft (4.0 m) Diameter 15 in (380 mm) Warhead 135 pounds (61 kg), high explosive Engine Solid propellant rocket motor Wingspan 3 ft (910 mm) Range 115+ miles Flight ceiling 100,000 ft (30 km) Flight altitude 80,000 ft (24 km) Speed Mach 5 Guidance Semi-active and active radar homing WAY too heavy for the Predator to carry, and it needs an attack radar the Predator doesn't have (and couldn't carry) Oh - and it was retired 5 years ago. Next? Quote>Speaking of strawmen... show me where I said that. Cool! So you admit that we do not need a "mach 3" fighter (which, of course, we don't have either) to engage enemy aircraft. Nope, didn't say THAT, either - what IS it with you trying to put words in my mouth, Bill?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #114 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuote I don't know. Why do you ASSume it's going to make it's entire flight at Mach 3? We have this thing called radar. The slower the fighters go, the better the defensive response. Wow, no shit??? Thanks for filling me in on that, bro - that's certainly something that I *never* picked up in the last 25 years I've worked with the military. QuoteYou've utterly failed to show where the fuck these mach 3 jets are going to come from. Their range at any speed is far too little to deal with these massive oceans we have. WTF??? We have massive oceans within the United States? Damn, I never knew that!!! Do some reading on air battle tactics. Your 'reasoning' is ludicrous. QuoteThe notion of an air attack is pretty ridiculous - it's crazy enough to try a naval attack or a land invasion from Mexico. How many drug flights from Mexico get lost in ground clutter every year?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #115 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuote[One of the reasons that I attribute (others have too, not trying to assert it’s a purely novel idea on my part) to the apparent difference in defense budgets between the US and other countries is purely domestic politics. There are other reasons too, which others have noted explictly [e.g., nanook's posts in this thread] … but this is one that I don’t think gets enough attention. ] From the early 1980s through mid-2000s, there was a domestic inclination to cut government size. Or cut apparent size of the federal government, e.g., no increases in federal civilians with a shift to increased reliance on contractors. [At the same time the only budget that was politically palatable to increase was the Defense Budget. One of the unintended consequences is that the Defense Department now gets ‘stuck’ being the effective lead for things that they don’t want or is only marginally in their mission area.] A lot of that came from the military downsizing, as well - they no longer had the personnel to do everything that needed to be done, so the contractors are hired to fill the gap. Are you effectively acknowledging the accuracy/veracity/agreement with of [DrewEckhardt’s]s comments to which I replied? Hypothetically a downsizing would have reduced budget; that's the usual argument. Unless you’re arguing/acknowledging contractors doing the same job as civilians or military personnel cost more, especially when the budget of other agencies are not being increased commensurately, e.g., see SecDef Gates comments on USAID staff differentials from when he was there and 2007, it doesn’t explain the disparity in defense budgets. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #116 July 17, 2009 Quote WTF??? We have massive oceans within the United States? Damn, I never knew that!!! Do some reading on air battle tactics. Your 'reasoning' is ludicrous. al Quada has mach 3 fighter planes within the US? Damn, I never knew that! So WTF have you been doing in the military for the past 25 years. SDI research? (another money pit in search of a mission) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #117 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote[One of the reasons that I attribute (others have too, not trying to assert it’s a purely novel idea on my part) to the apparent difference in defense budgets between the US and other countries is purely domestic politics. There are other reasons too, which others have noted explictly [e.g., nanook's posts in this thread] … but this is one that I don’t think gets enough attention. ] From the early 1980s through mid-2000s, there was a domestic inclination to cut government size. Or cut apparent size of the federal government, e.g., no increases in federal civilians with a shift to increased reliance on contractors. [At the same time the only budget that was politically palatable to increase was the Defense Budget. One of the unintended consequences is that the Defense Department now gets ‘stuck’ being the effective lead for things that they don’t want or is only marginally in their mission area.] A lot of that came from the military downsizing, as well - they no longer had the personnel to do everything that needed to be done, so the contractors are hired to fill the gap. Are you effectively acknowledging the accuracy/veracity/agreement with of [DrewEckhardt’s]s comments to which I replied? Hypothetically a downsizing would have reduced budget; that's the usual argument. Unless you’re arguing/acknowledging contractors doing the same job as civilians or military personnel cost more, especially when the budget of other agencies are not being increased commensurately, e.g., see SecDef Gates comments on USAID staff differentials from when he was there and 2007, it doesn’t explain the disparity in defense budgets. /Marg No, I was speaking more to the 'increased reliance on contractors' - I apologize for being unclear. IIRC, cost analyses have shown contractors to actually be cheaper than troops in many instances due to reduced logistical 'tail'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #118 July 17, 2009 Quote Quote WTF??? We have massive oceans within the United States? Damn, I never knew that!!! Do some reading on air battle tactics. Your 'reasoning' is ludicrous. al Quada has mach 3 fighter planes within the US? Damn, I never knew that! Who mentioned AQ? Setting up ANOTHER strawman? Quote So WTF have you been doing in the military for the past 25 years. SDI research? (another money pit in search of a mission) Evidently, learning more about their capabilities than YOU have. I do communications support - fixed station, satellite and battlefield comms (MSE).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #119 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote WTF??? We have massive oceans within the United States? Damn, I never knew that!!! Do some reading on air battle tactics. Your 'reasoning' is ludicrous. al Quada has mach 3 fighter planes within the US? Damn, I never knew that! Who mentioned AQ? Setting up ANOTHER strawman? Couldn't figure out any other enemy that would have jets based within our borders. Of course, even that was a ridiculous guess, but it's your boogeyman. If this is still too damn difficult to understand - there are remarkably few countries within range of any substantial fighter plane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,478 #120 July 17, 2009 >WAY too heavy for the Predator to carry Global Hawk RQ-4 UAV: Empty weight: 8,490 lb (3,850 kg) Gross weight: 22,900 lb (10,400 kg) Carrying capacity (fuel/sensors) - 14,000 lbs Weight of a Phoenix - 1000 lbs Capacity at 3/4 fuel load based on weight - 3 Phoenix missiles >Nope, didn't say THAT, either OK. So according to you we need a high-mach fighter and we don't need a high-mach fighter. Your logic remains consistent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #121 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote WTF??? We have massive oceans within the United States? Damn, I never knew that!!! Do some reading on air battle tactics. Your 'reasoning' is ludicrous. al Quada has mach 3 fighter planes within the US? Damn, I never knew that! Who mentioned AQ? Setting up ANOTHER strawman? Couldn't figure out any other enemy that would have jets based within our borders. Of course, even that was a ridiculous guess, but it's your boogeyman. And YOUR boogeyman is "jets based within our borders". QuoteIf this is still too damn difficult to understand - there are remarkably few countries within range of any substantial fighter plane. It's not that it's "too damn difficult to understand", it's that it is an entirely unrealistic assumption in regards to projection of air power, and has been for at least a couple decades. The warplane doesn't HAVE to (and I don't think any CAN) make a trans-oceanic flight on internal fuel. It brings tanker support with it, and tops up before starting it's insertion. The tanker DOESN'T accompany the fighter into the battle zone. The above, in fact, is exactly how our Nighthawks did their strikes into Kosovo under Clinton a decade ago.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #122 July 17, 2009 QuoteIIRC, cost analyses have shown contractors to actually be cheaper than troops in many instances due to reduced logistical 'tail'. Would you point to one? A few years back I had some discussions with a guy who at the time was in OSD-PA&E and he knew of no such study. (NB: w/r/t discussion of OSTP in another active thread who has a high skewed prestige to power ratio, the folks in PA&E have a very high skewed power to prestige ratio. They can impact programs.) US Air Force Air Logistics Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) found privatization of repair activities on F-15, C-130, C-5 and C-17 aircraft was so inefficient and cost more than federal employees that WR-ALC 402d MXW reversed the decision and has been hiring since summer 2007. Eric Prince, former CEO, of Xe (nee Blackwater) acknowledged in the Q&A period of his October 2007 Congressional testimony that there was no data supporting the perceived value to the taxpayer of contracting Blackwater versus employing federal workers in Iraq for private security. One can build an argument, rather robust im-ever-ho, that the uniformed military is underpaid. Perhaps most notably within the enlisted and junior officer ranks. Better paying civilian employment has regularly been cited as _one_ of the reasons for the high attrition rate of Army Captains, particularly West Point grads. It may also be _a_ factor in retaining E-6's. While not military services, data from other agencies also suggests contractors are not cheaper for the USG. In 2007, the CIA Inspector General found that a civilian employee costs the government an average of $126,500 annually including salary & benefits, while the average contract employee doing comparative work costs $250,000 annually. The IG’s findings were reported in the December 2007 House-Senate conference report on the fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization Bill. A number of folks have been concerned less w/r/t pure monetary costs than the less tangible consequence of having a reported up to 70% of the National Clandestine Service filled by contractors. Average tenure of an intelligence analyst is less than 7 years – they take their TS/SCI’s and go make a lot more money. IRS collection by federal employees was found to be more cost effective than private sector. While there are instances in which private companies do perform more efficiently, they are not _all_ instances and, perhaps, more importantly, there may be instances in which other factors are more important than lowest cost, e.g., civilian nuclear safety, air traffic control, nuclear submarine operation. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #123 July 17, 2009 Quote>WAY too heavy for the Predator to carry Global Hawk RQ-4 UAV: Empty weight: 8,490 lb (3,850 kg) Gross weight: 22,900 lb (10,400 kg) Carrying capacity (fuel/sensors) - 14,000 lbs Weight of a Phoenix - 1000 lbs Capacity at 3/4 fuel load based on weight - 3 Phoenix missiles Global Hawk != Predator Unknown if Global Hawk hardpoints would support missile mounts - hardpoint weight limit of 1000 could MAYBE support a Phoenix, except..... Phoenix STILL retired from inventory for the last 5 years STILL no attack radar in the drone 100+ mile missile engagement STILL bullshit. Quote>Nope, didn't say THAT, either OK. So according to you we need a high-mach fighter and we don't need a high-mach fighter. Your logic remains consistent. Nope, I didn't say THAT either - What I SAID is that a drone is NOT going to work as an airborne interceptor. FFS, quit trying to put words in my mouth, Bill.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #124 July 17, 2009 QuoteWould you point to one? I recall studies being mentioned in regards to base support functions - I do not know where they would be found, however. I can also speak in regards to communications assets - I was told by DISA project managers that it was cheaper for them to hire contractors for the base communications sites than it was to use troops/military equipment due to the logistical tail.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #125 July 17, 2009 On the UAV subject, this week the USAF released its unclassified Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Plan 2009-2047. 82 pages of cool stuff that the Air Force wants to/hopes to/dreams of doing with UAVs, including dog-fighting. /Marg ... not my area, but darned good, acronym-filled, miltary tech wonk porn-filled reading for some. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 5 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnealtx 0 #110 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI know three different guys working as contractors in Iraq, and all of them make more than 100k dollars per year. Yep. Of the friends I have who have worked privately in Iraq, salaries seemed to _start_ there. Sadly, one didn't come back. When the Army's Human Terrain System converted what were previously very high-payed contractor positions (some over $300K/year, most around $200K/year) to federal civilians (less than $100K/year) an estimated 1/3 quit. /Marg And I don't blame them in the least. I've had a couple offers for the sandbox that were just under 100k base salary. Bonuses and harzard pay take it over 100k, but not enough over it to be worth being shot at with no way to defend myself.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #111 July 17, 2009 Quote From the early 1980s through mid-2000s, there was a domestic inclination to cut government size. Or cut apparent size of the federal government, e.g., no increases in federal civilians with a shift to increased reliance on contractors. A lot of that came from the military downsizing, as well - they no longer had the personnel to do everything that needed to be done, so the contractors are hired to fill the gap.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #112 July 17, 2009 Quote I don't know. Why do you ASSume it's going to make it's entire flight at Mach 3? We have this thing called radar. The slower the fighters go, the better the defensive response. You've utterly failed to show where the fuck these mach 3 jets are going to come from. Their range at any speed is far too little to deal with these massive oceans we have. The notion of an air attack is pretty ridiculous - it's crazy enough to try a naval attack or a land invasion from Mexico. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #113 July 17, 2009 Quoteshooting a missile that doesn't exist. AIM-54 Phoenix: Length 13 ft (4.0 m) Diameter 15 in (380 mm) Warhead 135 pounds (61 kg), high explosive Engine Solid propellant rocket motor Wingspan 3 ft (910 mm) Range 115+ miles Flight ceiling 100,000 ft (30 km) Flight altitude 80,000 ft (24 km) Speed Mach 5 Guidance Semi-active and active radar homing WAY too heavy for the Predator to carry, and it needs an attack radar the Predator doesn't have (and couldn't carry) Oh - and it was retired 5 years ago. Next? Quote>Speaking of strawmen... show me where I said that. Cool! So you admit that we do not need a "mach 3" fighter (which, of course, we don't have either) to engage enemy aircraft. Nope, didn't say THAT, either - what IS it with you trying to put words in my mouth, Bill?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #114 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuote I don't know. Why do you ASSume it's going to make it's entire flight at Mach 3? We have this thing called radar. The slower the fighters go, the better the defensive response. Wow, no shit??? Thanks for filling me in on that, bro - that's certainly something that I *never* picked up in the last 25 years I've worked with the military. QuoteYou've utterly failed to show where the fuck these mach 3 jets are going to come from. Their range at any speed is far too little to deal with these massive oceans we have. WTF??? We have massive oceans within the United States? Damn, I never knew that!!! Do some reading on air battle tactics. Your 'reasoning' is ludicrous. QuoteThe notion of an air attack is pretty ridiculous - it's crazy enough to try a naval attack or a land invasion from Mexico. How many drug flights from Mexico get lost in ground clutter every year?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #115 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuote[One of the reasons that I attribute (others have too, not trying to assert it’s a purely novel idea on my part) to the apparent difference in defense budgets between the US and other countries is purely domestic politics. There are other reasons too, which others have noted explictly [e.g., nanook's posts in this thread] … but this is one that I don’t think gets enough attention. ] From the early 1980s through mid-2000s, there was a domestic inclination to cut government size. Or cut apparent size of the federal government, e.g., no increases in federal civilians with a shift to increased reliance on contractors. [At the same time the only budget that was politically palatable to increase was the Defense Budget. One of the unintended consequences is that the Defense Department now gets ‘stuck’ being the effective lead for things that they don’t want or is only marginally in their mission area.] A lot of that came from the military downsizing, as well - they no longer had the personnel to do everything that needed to be done, so the contractors are hired to fill the gap. Are you effectively acknowledging the accuracy/veracity/agreement with of [DrewEckhardt’s]s comments to which I replied? Hypothetically a downsizing would have reduced budget; that's the usual argument. Unless you’re arguing/acknowledging contractors doing the same job as civilians or military personnel cost more, especially when the budget of other agencies are not being increased commensurately, e.g., see SecDef Gates comments on USAID staff differentials from when he was there and 2007, it doesn’t explain the disparity in defense budgets. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #116 July 17, 2009 Quote WTF??? We have massive oceans within the United States? Damn, I never knew that!!! Do some reading on air battle tactics. Your 'reasoning' is ludicrous. al Quada has mach 3 fighter planes within the US? Damn, I never knew that! So WTF have you been doing in the military for the past 25 years. SDI research? (another money pit in search of a mission) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #117 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote[One of the reasons that I attribute (others have too, not trying to assert it’s a purely novel idea on my part) to the apparent difference in defense budgets between the US and other countries is purely domestic politics. There are other reasons too, which others have noted explictly [e.g., nanook's posts in this thread] … but this is one that I don’t think gets enough attention. ] From the early 1980s through mid-2000s, there was a domestic inclination to cut government size. Or cut apparent size of the federal government, e.g., no increases in federal civilians with a shift to increased reliance on contractors. [At the same time the only budget that was politically palatable to increase was the Defense Budget. One of the unintended consequences is that the Defense Department now gets ‘stuck’ being the effective lead for things that they don’t want or is only marginally in their mission area.] A lot of that came from the military downsizing, as well - they no longer had the personnel to do everything that needed to be done, so the contractors are hired to fill the gap. Are you effectively acknowledging the accuracy/veracity/agreement with of [DrewEckhardt’s]s comments to which I replied? Hypothetically a downsizing would have reduced budget; that's the usual argument. Unless you’re arguing/acknowledging contractors doing the same job as civilians or military personnel cost more, especially when the budget of other agencies are not being increased commensurately, e.g., see SecDef Gates comments on USAID staff differentials from when he was there and 2007, it doesn’t explain the disparity in defense budgets. /Marg No, I was speaking more to the 'increased reliance on contractors' - I apologize for being unclear. IIRC, cost analyses have shown contractors to actually be cheaper than troops in many instances due to reduced logistical 'tail'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #118 July 17, 2009 Quote Quote WTF??? We have massive oceans within the United States? Damn, I never knew that!!! Do some reading on air battle tactics. Your 'reasoning' is ludicrous. al Quada has mach 3 fighter planes within the US? Damn, I never knew that! Who mentioned AQ? Setting up ANOTHER strawman? Quote So WTF have you been doing in the military for the past 25 years. SDI research? (another money pit in search of a mission) Evidently, learning more about their capabilities than YOU have. I do communications support - fixed station, satellite and battlefield comms (MSE).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #119 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote WTF??? We have massive oceans within the United States? Damn, I never knew that!!! Do some reading on air battle tactics. Your 'reasoning' is ludicrous. al Quada has mach 3 fighter planes within the US? Damn, I never knew that! Who mentioned AQ? Setting up ANOTHER strawman? Couldn't figure out any other enemy that would have jets based within our borders. Of course, even that was a ridiculous guess, but it's your boogeyman. If this is still too damn difficult to understand - there are remarkably few countries within range of any substantial fighter plane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #120 July 17, 2009 >WAY too heavy for the Predator to carry Global Hawk RQ-4 UAV: Empty weight: 8,490 lb (3,850 kg) Gross weight: 22,900 lb (10,400 kg) Carrying capacity (fuel/sensors) - 14,000 lbs Weight of a Phoenix - 1000 lbs Capacity at 3/4 fuel load based on weight - 3 Phoenix missiles >Nope, didn't say THAT, either OK. So according to you we need a high-mach fighter and we don't need a high-mach fighter. Your logic remains consistent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #121 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote WTF??? We have massive oceans within the United States? Damn, I never knew that!!! Do some reading on air battle tactics. Your 'reasoning' is ludicrous. al Quada has mach 3 fighter planes within the US? Damn, I never knew that! Who mentioned AQ? Setting up ANOTHER strawman? Couldn't figure out any other enemy that would have jets based within our borders. Of course, even that was a ridiculous guess, but it's your boogeyman. And YOUR boogeyman is "jets based within our borders". QuoteIf this is still too damn difficult to understand - there are remarkably few countries within range of any substantial fighter plane. It's not that it's "too damn difficult to understand", it's that it is an entirely unrealistic assumption in regards to projection of air power, and has been for at least a couple decades. The warplane doesn't HAVE to (and I don't think any CAN) make a trans-oceanic flight on internal fuel. It brings tanker support with it, and tops up before starting it's insertion. The tanker DOESN'T accompany the fighter into the battle zone. The above, in fact, is exactly how our Nighthawks did their strikes into Kosovo under Clinton a decade ago.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #122 July 17, 2009 QuoteIIRC, cost analyses have shown contractors to actually be cheaper than troops in many instances due to reduced logistical 'tail'. Would you point to one? A few years back I had some discussions with a guy who at the time was in OSD-PA&E and he knew of no such study. (NB: w/r/t discussion of OSTP in another active thread who has a high skewed prestige to power ratio, the folks in PA&E have a very high skewed power to prestige ratio. They can impact programs.) US Air Force Air Logistics Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) found privatization of repair activities on F-15, C-130, C-5 and C-17 aircraft was so inefficient and cost more than federal employees that WR-ALC 402d MXW reversed the decision and has been hiring since summer 2007. Eric Prince, former CEO, of Xe (nee Blackwater) acknowledged in the Q&A period of his October 2007 Congressional testimony that there was no data supporting the perceived value to the taxpayer of contracting Blackwater versus employing federal workers in Iraq for private security. One can build an argument, rather robust im-ever-ho, that the uniformed military is underpaid. Perhaps most notably within the enlisted and junior officer ranks. Better paying civilian employment has regularly been cited as _one_ of the reasons for the high attrition rate of Army Captains, particularly West Point grads. It may also be _a_ factor in retaining E-6's. While not military services, data from other agencies also suggests contractors are not cheaper for the USG. In 2007, the CIA Inspector General found that a civilian employee costs the government an average of $126,500 annually including salary & benefits, while the average contract employee doing comparative work costs $250,000 annually. The IG’s findings were reported in the December 2007 House-Senate conference report on the fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization Bill. A number of folks have been concerned less w/r/t pure monetary costs than the less tangible consequence of having a reported up to 70% of the National Clandestine Service filled by contractors. Average tenure of an intelligence analyst is less than 7 years – they take their TS/SCI’s and go make a lot more money. IRS collection by federal employees was found to be more cost effective than private sector. While there are instances in which private companies do perform more efficiently, they are not _all_ instances and, perhaps, more importantly, there may be instances in which other factors are more important than lowest cost, e.g., civilian nuclear safety, air traffic control, nuclear submarine operation. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #123 July 17, 2009 Quote>WAY too heavy for the Predator to carry Global Hawk RQ-4 UAV: Empty weight: 8,490 lb (3,850 kg) Gross weight: 22,900 lb (10,400 kg) Carrying capacity (fuel/sensors) - 14,000 lbs Weight of a Phoenix - 1000 lbs Capacity at 3/4 fuel load based on weight - 3 Phoenix missiles Global Hawk != Predator Unknown if Global Hawk hardpoints would support missile mounts - hardpoint weight limit of 1000 could MAYBE support a Phoenix, except..... Phoenix STILL retired from inventory for the last 5 years STILL no attack radar in the drone 100+ mile missile engagement STILL bullshit. Quote>Nope, didn't say THAT, either OK. So according to you we need a high-mach fighter and we don't need a high-mach fighter. Your logic remains consistent. Nope, I didn't say THAT either - What I SAID is that a drone is NOT going to work as an airborne interceptor. FFS, quit trying to put words in my mouth, Bill.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #124 July 17, 2009 QuoteWould you point to one? I recall studies being mentioned in regards to base support functions - I do not know where they would be found, however. I can also speak in regards to communications assets - I was told by DISA project managers that it was cheaper for them to hire contractors for the base communications sites than it was to use troops/military equipment due to the logistical tail.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #125 July 17, 2009 On the UAV subject, this week the USAF released its unclassified Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Plan 2009-2047. 82 pages of cool stuff that the Air Force wants to/hopes to/dreams of doing with UAVs, including dog-fighting. /Marg ... not my area, but darned good, acronym-filled, miltary tech wonk porn-filled reading for some. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
