Who is stronger? Nobody. Not economically, not militarily, not diplomatically, and not commercially. Nobody.
Then produce it. This coming from you...Shane0911 on Tiger Forums. Who gives a fuck what you think. The joint chiefs have requested a lighter, more mobile force. They have asked congress to stop buying outdated weapon systems like Tanks because they want a more agile force. If you don't like it, tough shit. It's right there in black and white if you weren't too lazy to read it. You think you're the only one? Quit your crying boy....you don't know a god damned thing about me.
Winner. Reality isn't what a budget says. At any given time there are 3-5 Predators armed with up to 8 Hellfires roaming the planet. We've been doing this for a decade. It doesn't work and deterrence has lost it's luster and effectiveness. Obama won't label the enemy, he won't label the war, he's not trying to win anything. We just announce every few months that we've killed Mohammedimanassholeterrorist and think it's enough. We just killed the Taliban leader but in 2 months they will be stronger than ever with a more effective leader....this one was the wrong one at the wrong time. Right now we are basically back in 1982 in terms of nuclear posturing and equipment levels. Obama signed off on THAAD in Poland for 2019. But it's just like the 50's with Jupiters and Thors which of course, led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Great job. We're certainly banking on 182 Raptors to fill the job of 775 F-15 C's and D's and we are deploying them in 4 plane cells where once we deployed wings of aircraft. The F-22 has less than a 65% mission ready status meaning we can sortie 2.4 aircraft of these cells. The F-35 has reached IOC with the Marine Corps in Yuma but unfortunately the numbers for readiness is not at 50% yet but will get better over time. Ultimately the aircraft are designed for air denial missions and local air-superiority will be far harder to reach when a limited number of aircraft are trying to secure an area that has strong SAM coverage, AWACS and plenty of 3rd and 4th generation fighters that are loaded with 4th generation munitions. The Russians are the masters of surface to air weapons, their S400/500 systems are a generation ahead of the PAC3 Patriot. Only the Navy and the ground based version of the Standard 3 is in their league. The Russians deployed 1 battery of S400's in Syria and NATO jets have basically retreated 250 miles further back. The coverage of that one battery covers 1/2 of Turkey, all of Israel and everything in between. NATO commanders recently told NATO planners in Brussels that Russia has the ability from Russia itself to wipe out all forward deployed Fast Jets within 350 miles of the Russian borders. The Luftwaffe has basically folded unto itself with 26 operational Euro Fighters. The preeminent air forces in the west are now fielded by Poland, France and Sweden. The days of attrition warfare are over. While the SM3 and advance SM3 have a fabulous record of intercepts they are a low ballistic interceptor. Russian MIRVs mounted on the SS-24 would not only overwhelm the Aegis system they would absolutely defeat the Army's system in Alaska/California. These ABMs were not designed to defeat the Russian or Chinese ICBMs for many reasons, one is treaty even though we withdrew from the ABM treaty we have adhered to it's principals, two we have stated we are building and deploying to counter emerging threats from Iran and North Korea should we start to threaten their deterrence we will have something far worse than Ukraine. The last two sitting Presidents have placed the US and the world at a greater chance of nuclear destruction than Trump ever could. The elimination of a credible first strike because of funding priorities of wars ( Bush & Obama ) and insane policy ( Obama) has basically meant the US has only two options if confronted with a first strike...capitulate or use our second strike to kill cities which results in the destruction of ours. MAD only works if each level of an exchange is even. In other words if the US no longer posses a legitimate first strike capability and the Russians have it, does anyone really believe that a POTUS would sacrifice his population to retaliate over a first strike of mostly military targets regardless of the resulting collateral damage? The DDG-1000 Zumwalt which looks like the USS Enterprise and believe it or not has it's Captain named James Kirk...that's the good news. the bad news is this class of ships was to replace 1:1 the Tico's unfortunately they came in slightly over budget at 4 billion dollars a piece. For reference sake, the last Nimitz nuclear powered carrier we built ( these are not nuclear btw) with 75 airplanes was 4.4B. So we are building 3 of them at 12.7B. The Navy is considering phasing out the cruisers and just buying more Burkes now...great job Navy. The blame for this is all over the place, one shipyard, unions, congressmen , retired admirals etc etc. It maybe a fine ship but I could defeat it with 20 cheaper ships of all classes and still have money left. Next the US Navy made this ship called the USS Freedom and wants 40 of them, now 27 maybe next week 12 who knows. they were originally designed because of what happened in the Gulf with the USS Stark and combating smaller ships that were faster. We even coined the phrase Littoral Combat Ship...otherwise known as LCS. Well they had modules, an ASW one, an anti-mine variety, etc. They had a gun, no missiles ( offensive or defensive) and a helo. They were fast and designed to run with a smaller crew of about 120. Well at the same time we started retiring our FFG's the Perry class which was a damn fine ship but was never upgraded because the Navy wants new ships like the LCS. Trials have been going on for years and we even had a couple searching for lost airliners recently. But we realized something, in a real war they suck. they can't defend themselves and unless we are fighting pirates they are about useless. But we are retiring our Frigates so what to do? The SEDEF had a solution, the LCS is no more...we will call the LCS an FFG and buy some missiles from.......Sweden! Why Sweden? Because those guys have made a living off of building ships much like the LCS for 1/5th the price and armed to the teeth. How much do we have the in the LCS program.....19B....and 5 ships built. This last one is a joint service fuck-up. the largest most expensive aircraft program in our history...the F-35. Two engines developed ( in case one sucked) a special helmet, 3 versions ( STOVL, USAF and F-35C for carriers.) its a 1 Trillion dollar program and counting. This cheap plane was suppose to replace the other cheap plane ( the F-16) now the F-35 is coming in at 4.3 times the price of the F-16 Block 60 ( latest version) These planes are not 4 times better than Block 60's. In fact I would argue 100 F-35's versus 500 Block 60's would get their asses kicked. There's your budget. The Marines are slated to have the first operational unit in Yuma this year...5 years over-due. The program is 345 BILLION dollars over original projections. Let that number sink in....that is 10 full years of France and the UK defense budgets. NC Tiger can post budget crap all day long but it doesn't represent reality. Unmeasurable by budget, but definitely in existence is the current apathy among several branches. They aren't feeling any type of budget increase or outlay. Leadership is obviously much the same. Obama has spent far too much time and effort making the greatest force on the planet into a politically correct and inept fighting force. If anyone thinks we are better off today than we were 20 years ago, then wake the fuck up. We are not. Liberals seem to have little issue with drone killings but struggle with the ugly side of true combat. Dead is dead but the US has lost it's shock and awe. We are a shadow of our capability.
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/28/the..._dollars_are_vanishing_into_thin_air_partner/ and yet another article that disputes everything both of you are saying.
and this is your chief problem usc....you don't understand that mathematics does indeed represent reality. and right on cue....the nostalgia argument.....that somehow we are perpetually better off yesterday than we are today. can you please tell me exactly what year we should go back to in order for things to be perfect in the conservative world? anyone? I'm interested to know.
No, because you are incapable of understanding. Exactly why I refused to do the work that @uscvball did only to have you say "naw" Keep your head in the sand dummy. Abdul will be along shortly to take care of your exposed hind end.
Refute my points....each one. They are factual. Providing budget numbers is nothing. It isn't reality. I said nothing of nostalgia. In fact, my points were not romantic reminiscences of days gone by. They were about the harsh realities of global conflict and despite your claims of increased budget, etc, the US has found ourselves right back where we were in the 50's. That's not nostalgia. It's facking scary.
