Sequestration
How might the scale of the likely cut backs affect JSF?
Clear and present danger to a variant one wonders....
Shall we return to cats & flaps?
Despite the diversity among the seven teams, participants from both parties and all four armed services reached some unexpected points of consensus. CSBA has strongly criticized the troubled tri-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as too short-ranged for modern warfare, especially over the vast Pacific. In the exercise, "all teams cut F-35 procurement over the next 10 years," said co-author Mark Gunzinger. "One team cancelled the F-35 outright."
Shall we return to cats & flaps?
Last edited by JFZ90; 29th Nov 2012 at 09:35.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they did cut numbers I expect it'll be the variant running last that has an alternative available, whose abscence doesn't break the doctrine of an entire branch of the US armed forces and get rid of a self escorting component for a fleet of 10 large 40,000+ vessels. It's has also so far failed to conclusively prove it can land on a carrier.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Congress is unable to reach a budget deal by the end of the year, the impact of automatic spending cuts on Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter program would be "minimal," the company's chief financial officer told an investor converence on Thursday.
Bruce Tanner said that the "biggest exposure" for the F-35 would be a reduction in funds committed for the fifth production contract that's under negotiation, as well as additional funding for a sixth production contract.
However, who knows?
Bob C
Bruce Tanner said that the "biggest exposure" for the F-35 would be a reduction in funds committed for the fifth production contract that's under negotiation, as well as additional funding for a sixth production contract.
However, who knows?
Bob C
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Ares: Sequestration Becoming Preferred Option?
I will parrot many other news stories when I say it, but it's true. Sequestration, once the "nuclear option"... the "doomsday scenario"... the worst possible way to rein in the federal deficit ... is now becoming the preferred -- or at least default -- option in Washington. Here's just a quick summary of recent headlines.............
Defense News: Has HASC Chairman McKeon Thrown in the Towel on Sequestration?
Has House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, Washington’s top anti-sequestration warrior, finally thrown in the towel?
I will parrot many other news stories when I say it, but it's true. Sequestration, once the "nuclear option"... the "doomsday scenario"... the worst possible way to rein in the federal deficit ... is now becoming the preferred -- or at least default -- option in Washington. Here's just a quick summary of recent headlines.............
Defense News: Has HASC Chairman McKeon Thrown in the Towel on Sequestration?
Has House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, Washington’s top anti-sequestration warrior, finally thrown in the towel?
Well, all the USDoD and State Department colleagues I work with are very worried. Funding for anything but 'mission essential' TDY has been frozen; all conferences binned, 'base ops' cut by 30%, hiring freeze, hire vehicles returned...
So a bit like us then?
So a bit like us then?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MY GAWD!!
Conferences have been cancelled!!!!
Do the Great American Public realise that they are no longer protected by very necessary, and really cheap conferences........................
Conferences have been cancelled!!!!
Do the Great American Public realise that they are no longer protected by very necessary, and really cheap conferences........................
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Shed
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the elephant in the room has woken up.
Sequestration signed into effect
Gentlemen, dust down your doomsday scenarios.
For those that need a wee refresher or bit of light analyis on the subject, I'd recommend this series of articles as a starter.
Sequestration signed into effect
Gentlemen, dust down your doomsday scenarios.
For those that need a wee refresher or bit of light analyis on the subject, I'd recommend this series of articles as a starter.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it's indicative of procrastination and delay by an incompetent president who has been way out of his depth since the start of his first term. And a polarised electorate, some of whom can't see through him. Is he a charlatan, who stuck his head in the sand for far too long? I'm not saying that is necessarily my opinion, just putting it out there for debate. How will history judge Obama?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems there will be cuts of 18% in flying hours for each squadron. Also some unit may end up almost grounded.
No Thunderbird of Blue Angel displays either after the end of March. No F-22 display. Also no participation at all in airshows and it seems all official military airshows are cancelled. No fly overs of events.
Some interesting posts on Fighter Control and UKAR:-
US Sequestration thread • FighterControl • Military Aviation Forum
View topic - US Airshows cancelled (Updated)
Some interesting pieces here aswell:-
airforce-magazine.com Homepage
No Thunderbird of Blue Angel displays either after the end of March. No F-22 display. Also no participation at all in airshows and it seems all official military airshows are cancelled. No fly overs of events.
Some interesting posts on Fighter Control and UKAR:-
US Sequestration thread • FighterControl • Military Aviation Forum
View topic - US Airshows cancelled (Updated)
Some interesting pieces here aswell:-
airforce-magazine.com Homepage
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RR ... Do you know if the Americans log Flying Time as Brakes Off To Brakes On ? If so then the cunning plan introduced by a certain Air Force during the 70's Fuel Crises to log Flying Time as Airbourne to Touchdown might save that 18% right away 
Obama is not a Leader....but he does have an Agenda.
If you will think about the situation....one can see that Obama is pursuing that Agenda and using Sequestration as a Tool to achieve what he really wants.
Obama broached Sequestration as a Tool to force a compromise between the Republicans who wanted Spending Cuts and reform of Social Program Spending and the Democrats who wanted no Spending Cuts and greatly increased Taxation including Obama's Class Warfare targeting "Rich" people.
Neither Party would give....Obama formed the Simpson-Bowles Commission and upon receiving their Report....Ignored it.
We saw an impasse on the Debt Ceiling and both political parties embraced the notion of sequestration.....sent a Bill to Obama.....who signed it.
All the while, the Democrats in the Senate led by Pinky Reid have refused to bring up a Budget Bill despite the House sending them House Bills. Congress has a Constitutional Duty to do a Budget each Year....and the Senate is has refused to do so the whole while Obama has been in Office. Obama has not taken the first step towards forcing Pinky Reid to bring up such a Bill.
With no Budget (and the attendant compromise that would require), the Federal Government is funded by means of a Continuing Resolution which incorporates Base Line Budget procedures (automatic increases in spending as written into the last official Budget and the various Appropriations Bills). That means the Democrats continue to get their Spending Increases without any debate or compromise.
During the Presidential Debates....Obama stated flatly....that Sequestration was Bad.....and "Will not happen!"
Within the next two days he did an interview with the Des Moines Register, and immediately forbid the Paper from publishing that interview. During that interview Obama referenced the ending of the Bush Tax Cuts and the impending Sequestration as being the mechanisms whereby he could get the "Big Deal" on Taxes and Spending. Very clearly suggesting he was counting on both the Bush Tax Cuts to not be renewed and that Sequestration would happen and that situation would be "good" for his Agenda.
Excerpt from the Transcript of the Interview
Obama continues to deny he had anything to do with creating Sequestration....despite numerous sources....including his own Press Secretary Jay Carney stating the idea originated within the White House staff and Obama. Obama also signed the Budget Control Act that put Sequestration into place as well as just yesterday signing the Implementing Order.
Congress and Obama had Eighteen Months to work out a compromise and avoid Sequestration taking place. Congress failed and Obama did nothing to encourage them to do so. Obama has been on the Campaign Trail telling of the horrible things that will happen if the Federal Government has to take a 2.4% cut in Spending....and continued to do so even though he was proven wrong.
When Republicans came up with two ways to avoid Sequestration....including granting Obama full control over how the cuts would be done....he threatened to Veto both measures.
The question to answer is why would Obama, given two chances to avoid Sequestration by the Republicans....refuse to accept those offers....even when one was a transfer of Congressional Power to the President? Why would Obama turn down the offer of more "power"? What Politician turns away from getting more power? Why would a Politician, especially Obama, spurn the offer?
Obama created the idea of Sequestration, did nothing to prevent it from taking place, refused to intervene when given the opportunity to so, continues to blame Republicans, wrongly denies any involvement in the deal, and clearly is seen to be lying to the American People.
He lost on the Bush Tax Cuts....as they were made Permanent with the exception of the Class Warfare Taxes imposed on the Working Rich. The Warren Buffet's of the country did not take a hit under the new law but those who started businesses, who succeeded and now are enjoying the financial returns on a life long endeavor. The Tax law is all about Earned Income and not investment returns....one being taxed over 30% and the other at 15%
Obama wants more Taxes on the "Rich", and more spending and a bigger government.....is what he said in the Des Moines Register interview. That is why he is so intent upon Sequestration happening. He must be a very happy Camper now that is the Law.
The reality is the Federal Government is spending too damn much money, doing so corruptly, incompetently, and is spending hundreds of Billions on things the Federal Government has no business being involved in.
The Mormon should be in the White House today....not the Moron!
If you will think about the situation....one can see that Obama is pursuing that Agenda and using Sequestration as a Tool to achieve what he really wants.
Obama broached Sequestration as a Tool to force a compromise between the Republicans who wanted Spending Cuts and reform of Social Program Spending and the Democrats who wanted no Spending Cuts and greatly increased Taxation including Obama's Class Warfare targeting "Rich" people.
Neither Party would give....Obama formed the Simpson-Bowles Commission and upon receiving their Report....Ignored it.
We saw an impasse on the Debt Ceiling and both political parties embraced the notion of sequestration.....sent a Bill to Obama.....who signed it.
All the while, the Democrats in the Senate led by Pinky Reid have refused to bring up a Budget Bill despite the House sending them House Bills. Congress has a Constitutional Duty to do a Budget each Year....and the Senate is has refused to do so the whole while Obama has been in Office. Obama has not taken the first step towards forcing Pinky Reid to bring up such a Bill.
With no Budget (and the attendant compromise that would require), the Federal Government is funded by means of a Continuing Resolution which incorporates Base Line Budget procedures (automatic increases in spending as written into the last official Budget and the various Appropriations Bills). That means the Democrats continue to get their Spending Increases without any debate or compromise.
During the Presidential Debates....Obama stated flatly....that Sequestration was Bad.....and "Will not happen!"
Within the next two days he did an interview with the Des Moines Register, and immediately forbid the Paper from publishing that interview. During that interview Obama referenced the ending of the Bush Tax Cuts and the impending Sequestration as being the mechanisms whereby he could get the "Big Deal" on Taxes and Spending. Very clearly suggesting he was counting on both the Bush Tax Cuts to not be renewed and that Sequestration would happen and that situation would be "good" for his Agenda.
Excerpt from the Transcript of the Interview
Q Great. Mr. President, we know that John Boehner and the House Republicans have not been easy to work with, and certainly you’ve had some obstacles in the Senate, even though it’s been controlled by the Democrats. At the time, whenever — we talked a lot about, in 2008, hope and change. I’m curious about what you see your role is in terms of changing the tone and the perception that Washington is broken. But particularly, sir, if you were granted a second term, how do you implode this partisan gridlock that has gripped Washington and Congress and basically our entire political structure right now?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Rick, let me answer you short term and long term. In the short term, the good news is that there’s going to be a forcing mechanism to deal with what is the central ideological argument in Washington right now, and that is: How much government do we have and how do we pay for it?
So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent — at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit — but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business.
It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.
And we can easily meet — “easily” is the wrong word — we can credibly meet the target that the Bowles-Simpson Commission established of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, and even more in the out-years, and we can stabilize our deficit-to-GDP ratio in a way that is really going to be a good foundation for long-term growth. Now, once we get that done, that takes a huge piece of business off the table.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Rick, let me answer you short term and long term. In the short term, the good news is that there’s going to be a forcing mechanism to deal with what is the central ideological argument in Washington right now, and that is: How much government do we have and how do we pay for it?
So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent — at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit — but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business.
It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.
And we can easily meet — “easily” is the wrong word — we can credibly meet the target that the Bowles-Simpson Commission established of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, and even more in the out-years, and we can stabilize our deficit-to-GDP ratio in a way that is really going to be a good foundation for long-term growth. Now, once we get that done, that takes a huge piece of business off the table.
Congress and Obama had Eighteen Months to work out a compromise and avoid Sequestration taking place. Congress failed and Obama did nothing to encourage them to do so. Obama has been on the Campaign Trail telling of the horrible things that will happen if the Federal Government has to take a 2.4% cut in Spending....and continued to do so even though he was proven wrong.
When Republicans came up with two ways to avoid Sequestration....including granting Obama full control over how the cuts would be done....he threatened to Veto both measures.
The question to answer is why would Obama, given two chances to avoid Sequestration by the Republicans....refuse to accept those offers....even when one was a transfer of Congressional Power to the President? Why would Obama turn down the offer of more "power"? What Politician turns away from getting more power? Why would a Politician, especially Obama, spurn the offer?
Obama created the idea of Sequestration, did nothing to prevent it from taking place, refused to intervene when given the opportunity to so, continues to blame Republicans, wrongly denies any involvement in the deal, and clearly is seen to be lying to the American People.
He lost on the Bush Tax Cuts....as they were made Permanent with the exception of the Class Warfare Taxes imposed on the Working Rich. The Warren Buffet's of the country did not take a hit under the new law but those who started businesses, who succeeded and now are enjoying the financial returns on a life long endeavor. The Tax law is all about Earned Income and not investment returns....one being taxed over 30% and the other at 15%
Obama wants more Taxes on the "Rich", and more spending and a bigger government.....is what he said in the Des Moines Register interview. That is why he is so intent upon Sequestration happening. He must be a very happy Camper now that is the Law.
The reality is the Federal Government is spending too damn much money, doing so corruptly, incompetently, and is spending hundreds of Billions on things the Federal Government has no business being involved in.
The Mormon should be in the White House today....not the Moron!
Last edited by SASless; 2nd Mar 2013 at 14:24.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just released by ACC on their Tw@tter Feed ...
Thunderbirds Display Season ends 1st April 2013
ACC Tw@tter Feed
Coff
Thunderbirds Display Season ends 1st April 2013
ACC Tw@tter Feed
Coff
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 2nd Mar 2013 at 16:23.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reality is the [Federal]Government is spending too damn much money, doing so corruptly, incompetently, and is spending hundreds of Billions on things the [Federal] Government has no business being involved in.
LF
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
The Mormon should be in the White House today....not the Moron!
Still, at least the Mormon's idiocy would only have been directed at a small proportion of the population, the untermensch would no doubt have been cast adrift to fend for themselves.
(Nice little Mormon/moron dit by the way. Did you pick that up at a Tea Party or something?)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, we are in no position to gloat over here in Blighty. Our current generation of Philosophy, Politics and Economics Oxbridge graduates have never committed a days graft. I can't help looking at USA and wondering whether as SASLess said, the USA is subject to a political agenda rather than a government.....who knows?
Stacks,
May I assume you really were a Stacker?
May I assume you really were a Stacker?
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
The Mormon should be in the White House today....not the Moron!
Temple garment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia