http://au.biz.yahoo.com/080512/2/1qlzn.html US has April surplus but budget strained Tuesday May 13, 2008, 6:40 am The US government posted a $US159.3 billion ($A169.52 billion) surplus in April, helped by the mid-month deadline for individuals meeting 2007 tax obligations, but it was down from the prior year's surplus, the Treasury Department reported on Monday. In April 2007, the surplus was $US177.7 billion ($A189.1 billion). In the first seven months of fiscal 2008, which ends on September 30, the government's budget deficit swelled by 88.4 per cent to $US152.2 billion ($A161.97 billion), from $US80.8 billion ($A85.98 billion) in the first seven months of fiscal 2007. The latest figures point to growing strain on the budget, which is poised to face a deeper deficit as payments under an economic stimulus program agreed by Congress and the Bush administration get into full swing. The Congressional Budget Office forecast in March that the fiscal 2008 deficit likely will hit $US396 billion ($A421.41 billion). Defence spending keeps climbing as the administration seeks more funds for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the first seven months of fiscal 2008, Defence Department spending rose by about $US34 billion ($A36.18 billion) from the comparable period in fiscal 2007 to $US341.1 billion ($A362.99 billion). In April alone, receipts primarily from taxes totalled a record $US403.8 billion ($A429.71 billion), up from $US383.6 billion ($A408.22 billion) in April 2007. But outlays also set a record at $US244.5 billion ($A260.19 billion), compared with $US205.9 billion ($A219.11 billion) in April last year. Outlays are due to swell in coming months as tax rebates of up to $US600 ($A638.50) for individuals and $US1,200 ($A1,277) for married couples that are part of the administration's economic stimulus plan start flowing in earnest. The program, intended to give the flagging economy a boost, got started at the end of April and the Treasury Department said that $US3.4 billion ($A3.62 billion) had been issued. The stimulus package is suppose to pump about $US152 billion ($A161.75 billion) into consumers' hands to try to keep the consumption-driven economy from stalling.
Those huge military spending budget numbers still leaves the military in bad shape concerning a very large list of procurement priorities. AFA Editorial:
I would take that with a grain of salt - as you always should with regard to defense procurement lobbying. If we listened to the generals we'd have a squadron of laser-guided, electro-armored, horseborne cavalry, just in case the cylons disable our tanks.
You're right about the lobbies, but I can see what is happening to the air force with my own eyes. What do you think happens if you try to race a 26 year old car dozens of times per year, every year, and need it to be ready at any given time. I understand what you're saying about generals and what they want. Do your own homework on the number of flight hours our top line fighters were built for; and how much life is left in them. The vast majority of the USAF's air superiority fighter force is already flying with flight restrictions so they don't fall out of the sky. There are only two options right now. Buy more planes, or change what you ask from the Air Force. That's it.
The air force is in a pickle of its own making - it wants to buy MORE of the incredibly cost-inefficient F-22, a creature of 1980's engineering, with no real role- as a stopgap measure till the F-35 is deployed. At over $300 million per aircraft that is a tough sell, and why the Sec of D ain't buying it. You can't have your cake and eat it too, even US defense budget resources aren't unlimted.
Current procurement prices for the F-22 are 137 million per unit. The R&D costs are paid, and no longer relevant. However, this is not true for the -less-capable-in-every-way- F-35 as it still has a few more years before it's ready for prime time. Costs on it are already up to 87 million per plane, and it's only budgeted at 48 planes per year, peak. Mark my words when I say this, it'll cost more than the F-22. When you say the F-22 has no real role, are you unaware that other countries have been purchasing more advanced fighters than the F-15 for some time now? Controlling the skies isn't job number 1, day one, of any possible conflict in the foreseeable future? The role that is becoming obsolete is the light attack aircraft. Heavy bombers are used because they are more cost effective in semi-hot wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, because of extended loitering capabilities, and tremendous payload. The same is true when attacking an advanced integrated air defense. Future conflicts will see heavier usage of Reaper/Predator type UAV's further cutting into the role of the F-35. Also, the F-35 only carries two bombs while remaining stealthy. Air Superiority fighters will be the last of the manned aircraft flying, as it's by far the most brain power intensive role in the sky.
The F-35 may cost more - it will also be better, since it was developed later, and offer other cost-efficiencies since it will be used by all branches. As for the $347 million per plane cost - here is where the numbers are from. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm You are right, if you make more you can amortize the research cost more, that doesn't change the fact that the things are incredibly expensive and have no real purpose at the present time - except for the imaginary conventional war against China, to be fought tomorrow, that has been the centerpiece of every bloated, unneccessary procurement request since 1990. The war against China isn't going to be fought anytime soon, and if so it's not going to be decided by who can deliver the most air-to-air missiles. I'm more concerned about hte war/wars going on today.
F-35 will not be better because it was built later. It does not supercruise, and therefore doesn't dictate engagements. If you fly further, faster... you simply walk away from the fight if prudent. F-35 is less stealthy, much of this is dictated by the shape of the plane.... F-35 is supposed to replace everything from the F-16 to the A-10 and so compromises were made regarding wing/intake/ control surface shape. Higher wing loading and lower thrust/weight ratio tell me it isn't as maneuverable. Depending on flight profile, it has less range vs F-22... I could go on, but it's in no way a superior aircraft. The only built in advantage the F-35 has on the F-22 is a built in flir system. That isn't an issue with the F-22's radar being supremely capable in picking out ground targets, and superior to the F-35's radar suite. Hell, the French Rafale has a better radar set. The helmet mounted display developed for F-35 is being fitted for use in the Raptor. F-35 is an American government subsidized export project. It will never be built in the numbers required to overcome it's deficiencies. Forget a war with China, any nation can buy 500 Typhoons or next gen Mig 3X and outgun USAF with enough lead time. A-10's were purchased for the Vietnam war, and were loathed by many for decades... No one ever expected they would be the indispensable CAS backbone of the Air Force. B-52's were for nuking the Soviets, and will soldier on for almost 100 years before they are retired. Point is, you never know who you will fight in the future, so you buy the most capable plane available.
Do you work on the F22 program or something? My understanding is that the F22 and the F35 are largely similar, with the F35 taking the logical and cost-effective step of being able to be used by all three branches that will fly it and being more versatile, as opposed to the traditional inefficiency of having multiple development programs for only slightly different aircraft. Perhaps you are right that the f22 is superior in the air-to-air role - but since nobody else has F22's other than the 180 that we have already paid for, I don't see what the big deal is (according to the internet the F22's record is spotty as well) especially given 21st c. priorities. The B52 is the perfect example in the other direction - for years air force generals warned us how the B52 was unneccessary and should be replaced by the incredibly inefficient and useless B-1 and B-2. LOL - who's going to do this and invest the trillions of dollars necessary aside from the forces of Cobra? Even if this were physically possible for a random nation to do this - how are they going to build the infrastsructure and support and knowledge base required to train a 500 plane long-range capable airforce? They'll do this why - so taht they can ground our airfleet? Good then we'll buy some expensive ground to air missiles and shoot them all down - problem solved. The same reasons why it's inefficient for the US to put billions into old programs is also the same reason why it's inefficient for other actors to challnge the U.S. Why spend trillions in trying to achieve air-to-air superiority with the US when you can spend a fractional amount on nuclear weapons and achieve more leverage? This kind of conventional thinking based in WWII style dogfighting is nice but a good way to waste a lot of money. The number one aerial threat to the US over the last 50 years wasn't strategic bombers or even nuclear missiles, it was a bunch of guys who got past airport security. Pouring huge amounts of limited resources down a hole and operating in a linear progression when your threats are non linear is not advisable - that's why the last two secs of defense have seen fit to put F22 resources elsewhere.
We're planning to spend 200 billion dollars on the F-35, and we expect to get 2400 or so planes. It won't happen. I propose buying the worlds best air superiority fighter because all the money we spend on it will go into actual airplanes instead of extremely cost inefficient R&D for a plane that will be inferior to the F-22. Buy the 384 or so the USAF needs to equip 10 squadrons. That's another 200 F-22's @ 137 million per= 28 billion. Buy 2200 F-18E hornets @ 55 million per= 121 billion- and you still get savings by all services sharing parts. There, I just saved the country 50-150 billion dollars. The whole idea behind stealth is to slip into a high threat environment and hit high value targets. F-22 does this better because it's stealthier, faster, with longer range and, oh yeah, it's the superior A-A platform. If the idea is to haul iron and kill lots of targets in a low threat environment, then heavy bombers are ideal and secondary to that are conventional aircraft such as the F-18E since the F-35 is much more expensive, and isn't stealthy once you strap bombs to the outside of the plane. If we actually get 2400 F-35's then great! 2400 of them makes up for all compromises made in the JSF. That isn't the trend of U.S. military procurement. It's: spend a fortune to develop great hardware, balk at the cost, and buy 1/5th of what was planned. This is going to break the air force.
Because politicians can't see past the next election cycle. For example, the B-2 bomber is often cited as a poster child of overpriced military hardware that has no use. This a self fulfilling prophecy. It costs so much because we didn't order enough of them, we didn't make enough spare parts, etc. Northrop offered to build additional B-2's for a fixed price of 500 million each. That sounds like a lot, but it would have lowered the operating cost of the 19 bombers we currently have, killed the expensive to operate but awesome B-1B, and put off the need for a new bomber in 2018... which has no funding. It would have saved us a fortune had we spent an additional $100 billion before the production line closed, and added a great deal of capability to the military. As it stands, they are hardly used for fear that a lucky shot destroys a priceless national asset. The Soviet Union collapsed, and did we stop using heavy bombers? Hardly, they fly more than at any time since Vietnam. Have we stopped flying the wings (or longerons) off of F-15's? Nope. The number of viable airframes of all kinds is fast approaching crisis levels, with no money in the budget to replace them, and no foreseeable drop in sortie rates, thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan.
