USAF may be forced to restructure F-35, KC-46 and MQ-9 under sequestration

[unhappycamper]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-may-be-forced-to-restructure-f-35-kc-46-and-mq-9-under-sequestration-382008/

USAF may be forced to restructure F-35, KC-46 and MQ-9 under sequestration
By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC
09:25 6 Feb 2013

The Lockheed Martin F-35, Boeing KC-46 tanker and General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper could be restructured if the current budget impasse is not resolved, according to a US Air Force presentation to Congress.

If the Congress and the Obama Administration are unable to reach a fiscal agreement before 1 March, US defense outlays will be automatically cut by 10% across the board.

~snip~

Those restructurings would be on top of delays already being implemented on the F-35, Lockheed AC-130J gunship and space-based infrared satellite. New-start procurement and research and development efforts are also being frozen.

If the sequestration is enacted, flying hours would be reduced by 18% across the USAF fleet and depot level maintenance deferred. Flight training for pilots could shut down. The service's 180,000 civilian workers could be furloughed for up to 22 days.




unhappycamper comment: If a five percent budget cut causes these problems, perhaps we should rethink what we spend on our military. I personally would rather see a 25~35% cut to the military.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Should the 180,000 civilian Air force workers making good pay be fired

and told to wok somewhere else.

If so, what does that do to the current ponderous recovery?

A lot of that money that goes to the military goes back into our economy. If we cut the military by 25% to 30%, what do we do to restructure our economy.

That 180,000 jobs is only the Air Force. The other branches employ large numbers of civilians who would be shown the door. Our Department of defense is the world's largest employer. Cutting defense quickly would certainly cause a recession unless it is a slow process that allows the private enterprise part of the economy to absorb more than a million workers.

World's Largest Employer (You'll Never Guess)

We should remember that one of the ways Republicans hurt the recovery was to cut the number of civilian government workers at federal and state level. Many of these highly skilled workers did not find work with non government employers that paid their former salary or provided equivalent benefits. A lot of them are still unemployed. (Unemployment 7.9% at last report.)

Cutting the military is part of a process to divest this country of its Imperial hegemony. But it should be done carefully so we don't simply put a lot of people out of work.

[unhappycamper]

2. The problem is the way the MIC has been spreading the $$$ around.

A large defense contractor farms out things to be built all over the United States. By distributing the work, local politicians can say 'JOBS!' to keep the MIC rolling along.

Lockheed has used the Airbus model (farm out parts) to secure parts from all states as well as foreign countries.

A better solution would be to stop buying all this crap.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. So, yes, you are saying put the people out of work

until our public economy catches up. Use that to gut the Military Industrial Complex, and create a short economic depression and hope that things will be better when we come out the other side with a kindler, gentler, industrial base.

The problem with that plan is that there are real jobs with real people who have real lives at take w ho will lose everything.

I think the U.S. will, eventually, divest itself of empire because that is a natural historical process. We should help it with careful planning that will restructure our economy over a decade or two and let some other country become top dog.

[unhappycamper]

4. No, I am saying we do not need to:

a) be the world's policeman
b) be the world's arms supplier
c) drone (kill) people around the world
d) pay NATO for 72% of all NATO costs associated with Afghanistan
e) pay $2 billion dollars a week to keep the occupation going
f) continue with insane weapon building programs ($40 billion dollar ships and $1/4 billion dollar aircraft)
g) have a military budget that bean-counters cannot audit
h) and most importantly, continue to ignore our veterans.

In my book doing nothing is the wrong thing to do.

The US Military budget comes out of discretionary spending, the same pot as labor, environment, education, transportation, housing, etc. etc. etc. Here's the 2011 discretionary budget pie chart:




I am against cutting programs that help people and am for cutting programs that do not.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. I am not arguing against the points, nor saying do nothing, just your solution.

A great deal of our economy, and especially government spending, is tied up in the military. Cutting quickly would lead to a recession and massive unemployment. If we take a decade to change national priorities and the way we spend money, we could do this without a massive disruption in the economy.

Also, calling for such massive fast cuts in defense would never be passed by Democrats or Republicans, anyway. Small cuts each year will have the same effect. Just the Sequester, which isn't half what what we should do, is likely to pause, and possibly reverse, our economic recovery for at least a year.

Further, nothing is going to be done before the new congress in 2014. Republicans will not make substantial cut in anything except the 42% side of the above pie chart. If Democrats take over, I suspect we will see continued slow movement back to the left.

But no one in power will divest the U.S. of its imperial policies. Unfolding history will do that in time as it did it with all former empires.

[unhappycamper]

6. Sorry, but we need balance with the Department of War.

The five-sided puzzle palace will never stifle themselves when it comes to gorging at the money pit.

When over 55% of funding needed for social programs comes out of the same pot as the war machine, it's time to put the hammer down on the war machine.

Costs of military hardware have gone thru the roof over the last 10 years, and they should little sign of abating.

$7 billion dollar submarines? $2.1 billion dollar bombers? $40 billion dollar aircraft carriers? Half billion dollar LCS target barges? $500+ million dollar National Security Cutters? $5 billion dollar stealth destroyers? $400+ million F-22 fighters? Quarter of a billion dollar F-35 fighters? $317 million dollar cargo airplanes?

Come on.

I'd rather see fully funded schools, SNAP programs, education assistance, training programs and assistance to the poor rather than assistance to Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Atomics, Raytheon, etc. etc.

Want to see where we are headed? Google images --> abandoned soviet military bases

Asking the war machine and its arms builders to cut spending is like asking Louie Gohmert to say something intelligent.