aging tankers to be replaced

"Lyle" wrote in message ...
its not how much we spend but what percentage of the GNP that we
spend.

Actually, it's how many useful resources you can get into battle. The fact that Kenya
or Argentina or Burma might spend more than us as a percentage of GDP isn't
really useful to their soldiers if the Big Battle (tm) comes their way.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:36:45 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand"
wrote:


"Lyle" wrote in message ...
its not how much we spend but what percentage of the GNP that we
spend.

Actually, it's how many useful resources you can get into battle. The fact that Kenya
or Argentina or Burma might spend more than us as a percentage of GDP isn't
really useful to their soldiers if the Big Battle (tm) comes their way.

if i remember right, we spend like 3% of a budget in the trillions on
defense, where as other countries spend 3% or less of a budget in the
billions. The US military buget is bigger then most of the countries
in Europe budgets. And the US isnt even taxed as much as the European
countries are.

but the most important thing is that if war were to break out
tomorrow( i mean a big one, like china) the president has the power to
take control of the Nations Civilian Airliners for military
tranport/cargo duty, and dont forget about the merchant marine. and
that is sometihing that alot of countries just dont have. You can have
a big army, but if you cant get them there, their useless.
Civilian assests that can quickly be used for war if need be.

a website to go to is
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Just my opionion.

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...
"s.p.i." wrote in message om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...
The United States spends more on defense than the entire continent of
Europe including Russia. We spend more than the entire continent
of Asia including China and India. We spend more on defense
than the top ten nations combined.
Going to your analogy, the Germans had less equipment than their enemies,
yet could win battles by better methods. The US does not face this challenge.

Ten years from now its entirely plausible that some wily potential
opponents in that region may well have the capacity to outmatch us in
terms of Concentration Of Force fi we had to meet them near or on
their home turf.

Of course the US can be outnumbered at a moments notice. The Chinese
could outnumber us in the Taiwan straights by tomorrow as could the
Nigerians in Benin. But whatever they sieze, they could not hold.

Maybe you could describe a reasonable scenerio where we cannot
put more resources on the battlefield than our enemy. Iraq #1 was an
almost worst case example, with a very well armed and experienced
opponent about as far from the US as one can be.

So, if you could offer a reasonable scenerio.


This one gives the gist anyway:
http://www.capitolsource.net/files/p...y_strategy.pdf

"s.p.i." wrote in message om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...
Maybe you could describe a reasonable scenerio where we cannot
put more resources on the battlefield than our enemy. Iraq #1 was an
almost worst case example, with a very well armed and experienced
opponent about as far from the US as one can be.

So, if you could offer a reasonable scenerio.


This one gives the gist anyway:
http://www.capitolsource.net/files/p...y_strategy.pdf

Boy what a boring read.

You're arguing that the Chinese will launch 'thousands' of ballistic
missiles with 'advanced conventional warheads'. I'm not really
worried about scenerios involving weapons that the Chinese don't
have and currently cannot even build, and that no other nation on
the planet has chosen to develop.

Maybe we should end this conversation. It's uninteresting.

X-URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer


washingtonpost.com

Documents Detail Maneuvers for Boeing Lease

By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 31, 2003; Page A10

The two years of negotiations that culminated in a $21 billion deal
for the Air Force to lease, then buy, 100 Boeing Co. planes were
punctuated by attempts to seek "political cover" and personal appeals
by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to President Bush,
according to more than 100 pages of internal documents released
yesterday.

The Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by John McCain (R-Ariz.),
the chief critic of the deal, released the documents after reviewing
about 8,000 pages turned over by Chicago-based Boeing, the Air Force,
the Defense Department and the Office of Management and Budget.
McCain has accused the Air Force of developing the plan to help
Boeing, the Pentagon's second-largest contractor, weather the downturn
in commercial aviation.

{....}

But a recent Congressional Budget Office report said the Air Force
"significantly understates" the cost difference and estimates that
the lease-buy strategy would cost $21.5 billion, while buying the
aircraft outright would cost $15.9 billion.

{...}

The documents raise questions about how the Air Force developed its
argument that it needs the planes urgently, congressional sources
said. A September 2002 e-mail from a Boeing official said Marvin
Sambur, the Air Force's chief procurement officer, requested
clarification.

The Air Force "is desperately looking for the rationale for why the
USAF should pursue the 767 Tanker NOW," the e-mail said. "Sambur is
looking for the compelling reason the administration should do this
now rather than push off to a future administration."


FWIW:

A friend reported that part of the higher cost is that while Boeing
owns the tankers, they will perform the maint. on them and be
reimbursed by Uncle Sam, vs. Him doing it himself/bidging it out...
Anyone know the specifics?


Also, the question about when the tankers do get into hot areas. He
recalled a tanker commander being brought up on charges in GW#1 for
breaking the ROE & crossing the Iraq border to assist someone running
dry. True?


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Also, the question about when the tankers do get into hot areas. He
recalled a tanker commander being brought up on charges in GW#1 for
breaking the ROE & crossing the Iraq border to assist someone running
dry. True?


I find that ludicrous. It happens all the time.

Curt