A-10, U-2, USS George Washington saved

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thorlifter

Captain
7,980
433
Jun 10, 2004
Knoxville, TN
U-2 plane, Warthog, ships: defense bill highlights | wfaa.com Dallas - Fort Worth

WASHINGTON (AP) — The old refrain is, "The president proposes, but Congress disposes." Never a truer phrase has been uttered when it comes to the nation's military budget.

The Republican-controlled House on Thursday overwhelmingly backed a $601 billion defense authorization bill that rebuffs Pentagon plans to retire Cold War-era aircraft, take ships out of commission and increase out-of-pocket costs for personnel. The vote was 325-98.

The end of two wars means smaller defense budgets and the Pentagon had come up with its cost-saving plans. Republicans and Democrats buckled under election-year pressure and balked at the cuts, especially for programs in their home states that mean hundreds of thousands of jobs.

On the other side of the Capitol, the Senate Armed Services Committee wrapped up work on its version of the defense bill. Republicans and Democrats were more receptive to several of the Pentagon proposals, agreeing with military leaders that saving some weapons would undercut readiness.

The Senate committee's bill costs $514 billion. Unlike the House, the panel didn't include a placeholder of $79.4 billion for the war in Afghanistan and other overseas operations as it awaits word from the Obama administration on the exact cost.

Some highlights of the bills:

____

HANDLING SUSPECTS AT GUANTANAMO

Congress repeatedly has thwarted President Barack Obama's efforts to close the U.S. naval installation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that currently houses 154 terror suspects. The Senate Armed Services Committee may have given Obama his first real chance to shutter the facility.

The committee's bill "created a path to close Guantanamo," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the panel's chairman. Under the proposal, the administration would have to present a comprehensive plan to Congress on how to close the facility and transfer terror suspects. Both houses of Congress could back a joint resolution of disapproval, but the president would have the opportunity to veto the resolution.

The House bill continues the prohibition on transferring terror suspects to maximum-security prisons in the United States.

___

MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT

Both the House bill and the Senate committee measure take the same approach to dealing with the pervasive problem of sexual assault in the military.

The bills would change the military rules of evidence to prohibit an accused service member from using good military character as defense in court-martial proceedings unless it was directly relevant to the alleged crime.

The "good soldier defense" could encompass a defendant's military record of reliability, dependability, professionalism and reputation as an individual who could be counted on in war and peacetime.

____

SHIPS AND PLANES

The House and the Senate panel halted any Navy effort to retire the nuclear-powered USS George Washington aircraft carrier, providing money to refuel the carrier. Levin argued that the carrier has 25 years left and it made no sense to move to mothball it.

Congress also spared the A-10 Warthog, the close-air support plane often described as ugly but invaluable. The House bill took $635 million from another account to save the plane. The Senate panel found millions in the budget to save the aircraft.

The House bill also spared the U-2 spy plane, the aircraft born in 1955 and famous for snooping on the Soviets. The Senate committee bill moves money from the Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft to the U-2 but doesn't prevent the military from retiring either one.

___

RAISING THE PAY

The president proposed a 1 percent pay raise for military personnel. The House bill hikes it to 1.8 percent while the Senate committee agreed with Obama.
 
Great news about the A-10. Best ground attack aircraft there ever was or probably will be. I remember years back when they were going to retire it and replace it with the F-16. Like the F-16 could take a quarter if the punishment an A-10 can.
 
I think that the Air Force has been using scare tactics to try and get rid of the A-10, they have tried to kill it since it came out, they have just recently (3 years or so) upgraded it to the C model and are re winging them as we speak. They try to say it only preforms one mission, but it does several that a fast mover will not preform as well. An F-16 can not loiter over a battle field and give constant support, Pin point support to our men on the ground. An AC-130 can but they can be few and far between. Hell hath no furry as an AC.
 
While the firepower of an AC gunship is certainly impressive, it isn't as flexible as an A-10...

An A-10 can approach and engage from a variety of angles/solutions, but the AC aircraft has to orbit in order to lay down the hurt.

Glad to see Congress' head emerged from it's arse long enough to do something right...
 
As much as I like to see the A-10 continue, I hate it when politics becomes more important than determining what we truly need from a defense standpoint.

Saving the George Washington and U-2 are kind of useless. The Carrier would only be mothballed until needed - makes sense to me. As far as the A-10 goes, I think it's real competitor is not other jet aircraft but attack helicopters. Both have a longer battlefield presence, are slow flying, etc. And where it stacks up from an efficiency vs Attack helicopters I do not know.

But to make a decision based on getting votes in one's state or district and not for the needs of the nation is so wrong to me. It's anti-patriotic in my opinion, putting personal gain and needs above that of the nation's.
 
I guess to put what I was trying to say into historical perspective -

Lets say in the 1930's the owners of the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation contributed heavily to political campaigns. And a comittee leader on one of the arms procurement issues happened to also have a large Brewster factory in their district. They manage to get rid of any competition for the Buffalo, the Grumman Wildcat does not really come about, and we go to war with Brewster Buffalos and not much else on the drawing board for Navy fighters.

That's why arms procurement issues need to be based upon the quality of the designs and germaine issues, not who has the most political clout for getting a contract.
 
As far as the A-10 goes, it really has no equal either in the rotory or fixed-wing categories.

It is one of those rare instances where it proved it's investment several times over.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back