Sequestration Cuts

[kalm]

It will be interesting to watch these type of things unfold. The federal government is MASSIVE especially, when you can close 149 air traffic control towers without having to close any airports. I wonder who this will impact and why some Republicans are disappointed. Did they think they could cut spending without any impact?:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration said on Friday it will close 149 air traffic control towers at small airports across the country beginning on April 7 as it copes with automatic federal spending cuts.

The White House and transportation leaders have warned for weeks that the $85 billion in federal cuts known as "sequestration" would force smaller airports across the country to curtail operations.

The across-the-board cuts started kicking in on March 1 because Congress was not able to reach an alternative budget deal to replace them. The FAA must absorb $637 million in cuts by September 30...

Republican lawmakers expressed concern about the decision and asked LaHood in a letter for the analysis showing that closing each tower, as well as so many towers simultaneously, would not jeopardize safety.

Republicans have repeatedly accused the White House of exaggerating the effects of sequestration in an attempt to shift the blame for a failed budget deal to Republicans.

"We are deeply disappointed by the Administration's choice today to push ahead with its proposed contract tower closings and are concerned about potential impacts on aviation safety," said House of Representatives Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster and Senator John Thune, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

http://news.yahoo.com/faa-says-close-14 ... 02567.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CitadelGrad]

It will be interesting to watch these type of things unfold. The federal government is MASSIVE especially, when you can close 149 air traffic control towers without having to close any airports. I wonder who this will impact and why some Republicans are disappointed. Did they think they could cut spending without any impact?:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration said on Friday it will close 149 air traffic control towers at small airports across the country beginning on April 7 as it copes with automatic federal spending cuts.

The White House and transportation leaders have warned for weeks that the $85 billion in federal cuts known as "sequestration" would force smaller airports across the country to curtail operations.

The across-the-board cuts started kicking in on March 1 because Congress was not able to reach an alternative budget deal to replace them. The FAA must absorb $637 million in cuts by September 30...

Republican lawmakers expressed concern about the decision and asked LaHood in a letter for the analysis showing that closing each tower, as well as so many towers simultaneously, would not jeopardize safety.

Republicans have repeatedly accused the White House of exaggerating the effects of sequestration in an attempt to shift the blame for a failed budget deal to Republicans.

"We are deeply disappointed by the Administration's choice today to push ahead with its proposed contract tower closings and are concerned about potential impacts on aviation safety," said House of Representatives Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster and Senator John Thune, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

http://news.yahoo.com/faa-says-close-14 ... 02567.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cut spending? Get off the drugs, dude. The government will spend more this year than last year because it will take in more revenue this year than last year.

[grizzaholic]

It will be interesting to watch these type of things unfold. The federal government is MASSIVE especially, when you can close 149 air traffic control towers without having to close any airports. I wonder who this will impact and why some Republicans are disappointed. Did they think they could cut spending without any impact?:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration said on Friday it will close 149 air traffic control towers at small airports across the country beginning on April 7 as it copes with automatic federal spending cuts.

The White House and transportation leaders have warned for weeks that the $85 billion in federal cuts known as "sequestration" would force smaller airports across the country to curtail operations.

The across-the-board cuts started kicking in on March 1 because Congress was not able to reach an alternative budget deal to replace them. The FAA must absorb $637 million in cuts by September 30...

Republican lawmakers expressed concern about the decision and asked LaHood in a letter for the analysis showing that closing each tower, as well as so many towers simultaneously, would not jeopardize safety.

Republicans have repeatedly accused the White House of exaggerating the effects of sequestration in an attempt to shift the blame for a failed budget deal to Republicans.

"We are deeply disappointed by the Administration's choice today to push ahead with its proposed contract tower closings and are concerned about potential impacts on aviation safety," said House of Representatives Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster and Senator John Thune, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

http://news.yahoo.com/faa-says-close-14 ... 02567.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think we need air traffic control towers. I say close them all and save a boat load! Planes are fancy these days and can land and take off without human interference. I say give them pilots some binoculars so if they need to adjust the landing or take off they can do so.

[TheDancinMonarch]

Sounds like a win all the way around. The air traffic controllers will be able to sleep in their own beds and the taxpayers will save a few bucks.

[∞∞∞]

It will be interesting to watch these type of things unfold. The federal government is MASSIVE especially, when you can close 149 air traffic control towers without having to close any airports. I wonder who this will impact and why some Republicans are disappointed. Did they think they could cut spending without any impact?:



http://news.yahoo.com/faa-says-close-14 ... 02567.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think we need air traffic control towers. I say close them all and save a boat load! Planes are fancy these days and can land and take off without human interference. I say give them pilots some binoculars so if they need to adjust the landing or take off they can do so.

Somewhat to the point, but there was a very controversial report written by a Navy captain Henry Hendrix that heading forward, the aircraft carrier (even the upcoming Enterprise) is quickly becoming an antiquated, inefficient concept that's not keeping up with today's warfare technology. It might have worked in WWII, but if the US were to ever be in a conflict with another major power, the carrier is more of a liability than a tool. Here's the forward, with a link posted to the rest:

The queen of the American fleet, and the centerpiece of the most powerful Navy the world has ever seen, the aircraft carrier, is in danger of becoming like the battleships it was originally designed to support: big, expensive, vulnerable – and surprisingly irrelevant to the conflicts of the time.

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/pub ... _FINAL.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought there were a lot of great arguments. With the weapons systems that other major nations possess today, it's much more difficult to defend an aircraft carrier than it was decades ago, basically endangering large amounts of lives and equipment. And with the emergence of drones and other weapons that can hit pinpoint targets, do we really need floating cities instead of specialized ships that spread the risks and can do the job much more efficiently? We're still going to need aircraft carriers, but they need to be smaller and built mainly to launch unmanned vehicles.

All technology has its time and place and much as these "queens of the American fleet" have done, the carrier is no different. Is its passing right now, and should we still be investing a lot of money in them? It's certainly an interesting discussion to have.

[grizzaholic]

I don't think we need air traffic control towers. I say close them all and save a boat load! Planes are fancy these days and can land and take off without human interference. I say give them pilots some binoculars so if they need to adjust the landing or take off they can do so.

Somewhat to the point, but there was a very controversial report written by a Navy captain Henry Hendrix that heading forward, the aircraft carrier (even the upcoming Enterprise) is quickly becoming an antiquated, inefficient concept that's not keeping up with today's warfare technology. It might have worked in WWII, but if the US were to ever be in a conflict with another major power, the carrier is more of a liability than a tool. Here's the forward, with a link posted to the rest:

The queen of the American fleet, and the centerpiece of the most powerful Navy the world has ever seen, the aircraft carrier, is in danger of becoming like the battleships it was originally designed to support: big, expensive, vulnerable – and surprisingly irrelevant to the conflicts of the time.

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/pub ... _FINAL.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought there were a lot of great arguments. With the weapons systems that other major nations possess today, it's much more difficult to defend an aircraft carrier than it was decades ago, basically endangering large amounts of lives and equipment. And with the emergence of drones and other weapons that can hit pinpoint targets, do we really need floating cities instead of specialized ships that spread the risks and can do the job much more efficiently? We're still going to need aircraft carriers, but they need to be smaller and built mainly to launch unmanned vehicles.

Anyways, I thought it was an interesting argument.

We got these baby's on the AC's. I wouldn't want to be on the business end of one of them, and they will catch them damn missiles as well.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsnhyTiTqk4[/youtube]

EDIT: better video

[kalm]

Somewhat to the point, but there was a very controversial report written by a Navy captain Henry Hendrix that heading forward, the aircraft carrier (even the upcoming Enterprise) is quickly becoming an antiquated, inefficient concept that's not keeping up with today's warfare technology. It might have worked in WWII, but if the US were to ever be in a conflict with another major power, the carrier is more of a liability than a tool. Here's the forward, with a link posted to the rest:


http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/pub ... _FINAL.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought there were a lot of great arguments. With the weapons systems that other major nations possess today, it's much more difficult to defend an aircraft carrier than it was decades ago, basically endangering large amounts of lives and equipment. And with the emergence of drones and other weapons that can hit pinpoint targets, do we really need floating cities instead of specialized ships that spread the risks and can do the job much more efficiently? We're still going to need aircraft carriers, but they need to be smaller and built mainly to launch unmanned vehicles.

Anyways, I thought it was an interesting argument.

We got these baby's on the AC's. I wouldn't want to be on the business end of one of them, and they will catch them damn missiles as well.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsnhyTiTqk4[/youtube]

EDIT: better video

I think Alpha said he was gonna buy one of those.

[∞∞∞]

We got these baby's on the AC's. I wouldn't want to be on the business end of one of them, and they will catch them damn missiles as well.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtwPUjqKzpI[/youtube]

I think the argument is that missile, bombing, stealth, submarine, and drone technology is so much cheaper, accurate, and more attainable today than its ever been. The AC is great against the Iraqs and Irans of the world, but if we ever got into a conflict with a major power today, they wouldn't have a difficult time destroying an aircraft carrier by sending swaths of specialized weapons at it (none that were available in WWII). But on the other hand, a flotilla of smaller and more efficient boats would be tougher to fight against as well as not being as risky. It's an interesting argument being made by a high Navy official.

[grizzaholic]

We got these baby's on the AC's. I wouldn't want to be on the business end of one of them, and they will catch them damn missiles as well.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtwPUjqKzpI[/youtube]

I think the argument is that missile, bombing, and drone technology is so much cheaper, accurate, and more attainable today than its ever been. The AC is great against the Iraqs and Irans of the world, but if we ever got into a conflict with a fellow major power today, they wouldn't have a difficult time destroying an aircraft carrier by sending swaths of specialized weapons at it (none that were available in WWII). But on the other hand, a flotilla of smaller and more efficient boats would be tougher to fight against as well as not being as risky. It's an interesting argument being made by a high Navy official.

A war with another super power is a lose lose situation. I believe they call it Mutual Assured Destruction.

You sure those Phalanx guns couldn't protect them?

[∞∞∞]

A war with another super power is a lose lose situation. I believe they call it Mutual Assured Destruction.

You do speaketh the truth there.

[grizzaholic]

A war with another super power is a lose lose situation. I believe they call it Mutual Assured Destruction.

You do speaketh the truth there.

PARTY TIME!!!! Grizza gets something correct.

[AZGrizFan]

Funny to sit and watch the amateurs talk about the military.

[∞∞∞]

Funny to sit and watch the amateurs talk about the military.

I'm summarizing the report's argument to my best understanding; it's written by high Navy official w/ a PhD.

I'm not sure if you agree or disagree, but he makes great points in the document (linked above).

edit: here's the final thoughts from the paper:

An innovative culture has characterized the U.S. Navy throughout its history. The carrier had its day, but continuing to adhere to 100 years of aviation tradition, even in the face of a direct challenge, signals a failure of imagination and foreshadows decline. Money is tight, and as the nautical saying goes, the enemy has found our range. It is time to change course.

[AZGrizFan]

Funny to sit and watch the amateurs talk about the military.

I'm summarizing the report's argument to my best understanding; it's written by high Navy official w/ a PhD.

I'm not sure if you agree or disagree, but he makes great points in the document (linked above).

Then he needs to review history. The AC has NEVER been easy to defend, ESPECIALLY when in a war with another superpower. He should look up exactly how many carriers we lost to Japan in WWII. The purpose of the AC is to project U.S. power--plain and simple. When you can park a floating city off the coast of a country, a floating city (ONE SINGLE SHIP) that contains an air force larger and more powerful than all but about 4 countries on the PLANET, you are projecting power than no other country on the planet has the ability to project. You can't project THAT kind of power with a drone.

And FYI, submarine power is HARDLY "cheap". He needs to look up the cost of a single trident missile sub.

Edit: And just because a country has a missile that COULD reach a carrier doesn't mean that the carrier isn't going to operate inside that missile envelope. That's what the Aegis cruisers are for. Trust me when I say this: these ships have capabilities that even THIS PhD guy doesn't have the clearance for.

[∞∞∞]

No one is saying it wasn't hard to defend the carriers during WWII, but that was 65+ years ago and technology has significantly changed since; I think the argument is that their time has come and passed (or will do so soon). They are AMAZING machines, but so were the Space Shuttles. He's arguing that we're holding on to an antiquated idea and that the Navy needs to be more creative if we're to stay ahead of the curve.

Why don't you just read the report?

[AZGrizFan]

Funny to sit and watch the amateurs talk about the military.

I'm summarizing the report's argument to my best understanding; it's written by high Navy official w/ a PhD.

I'm not sure if you agree or disagree, but he makes great points in the document (linked above).

edit: here's the final thoughts from the paper:

An innovative culture has characterized the U.S. Navy throughout its history. The carrier had its day, but continuing to adhere to 100 years of aviation tradition, even in the face of a direct challenge, signals a failure of imagination and foreshadows decline. Money is tight, and as the nautical saying goes, the enemy has found our range. It is time to change course.

He REALLY struggles to define his argument. Is it an obsolete system? Is it ineffective? Does it cost too much? Is it because of sequestration? Believe me, there's still 90% of the planet (including China) that still shudders at the sight of a US carrier off their coast. And exactly how does he propose getting those destroyers and littoral ships close enough to do THEIR work without the air support provided by carrier planes? Or doesn't that count as "combat operations" in his mind because they're not actually "dropping bombs". For a PhD, he's pretty fucking scatterbrained.

[CID1990]

I'm summarizing the report's argument to my best understanding; it's written by high Navy official w/ a PhD.

I'm not sure if you agree or disagree, but he makes great points in the document (linked above).

Then he needs to review history. The AC has NEVER been easy to defend, ESPECIALLY when in a war with another superpower. He should look up exactly how many carriers we lost to Japan in WWII. The purpose of the AC is to project U.S. power--plain and simple. When you can park a floating city off the coast of a country, a floating city (ONE SINGLE SHIP) that contains an air force larger and more powerful than all but about 4 countries on the PLANET, you are projecting power than no other country on the planet has the ability to project. You can't project THAT kind of power with a drone.

And FYI, submarine power is HARDLY "cheap". He needs to look up the cost of a single trident missile sub.

This.

The Navy encourages this kid of critical thinking from its commanders and flag officers, but at the end of the day this is one essay in a sea of essays all saying different things.

AT Mahan's theories of sea lanes of communication and protection of those sea lanes are as valid today as they were at the end of the 19th century. The aircraft carrier is the latest iteration of the capital ship, but until we come up with something that can more effectively project power we will use carriers as our expression of sea power.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[AZGrizFan]

No one is saying it wasn't hard to defend the carriers during WWII, but that was 65+ years ago and technology has significantly changed since; I think the argument is that their time has come and passed (or will do so soon). They are AMAZING machines, but so were the Space Shuttles. He's arguing that we're holding on to an antiquated idea and that the Navy needs to be more creative if we're to stay ahead of the curve.

Why don't you just read the report?

I did.

[AZGrizFan]

BTW, I also had to laugh at his gripping description of landing a plane on a carrier. Dude is an NFO--he's never had to actually DO that in his life.

[grizzaholic]

Funny to sit and watch the amateurs talk about the military.

Hey, I brought my A-Game. I even got a correct answer!!!!!!!!! and a few more for the masses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111

I know I am an amateur but I also think I won the argument.

[DSUrocks07]

This will all be so much easier when we get Imperial Star Destroyers.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[grizzaholic]

This will all be so much easier when we get Imperial Star Destroyers.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

You do understand that the bright light last night on the EC(b) WAS an Imperial Star Destroyer. It was an a1 model, the newer ones (b2a) use a cloaking device so when they leave the Earth they are not detected.


EDIT: I have heard this from a very reliable source.

[CID1990]

It will be interesting to watch these type of things unfold. The federal government is MASSIVE especially, when you can close 149 air traffic control towers without having to close any airports. I wonder who this will impact and why some Republicans are disappointed. Did they think they could cut spending without any impact?:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration said on Friday it will close 149 air traffic control towers at small airports across the country beginning on April 7 as it copes with automatic federal spending cuts.

The White House and transportation leaders have warned for weeks that the $85 billion in federal cuts known as "sequestration" would force smaller airports across the country to curtail operations.

The across-the-board cuts started kicking in on March 1 because Congress was not able to reach an alternative budget deal to replace them. The FAA must absorb $637 million in cuts by September 30...

Republican lawmakers expressed concern about the decision and asked LaHood in a letter for the analysis showing that closing each tower, as well as so many towers simultaneously, would not jeopardize safety.

Republicans have repeatedly accused the White House of exaggerating the effects of sequestration in an attempt to shift the blame for a failed budget deal to Republicans.

"We are deeply disappointed by the Administration's choice today to push ahead with its proposed contract tower closings and are concerned about potential impacts on aviation safety," said House of Representatives Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster and Senator John Thune, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

http://news.yahoo.com/faa-says-close-14 ... 02567.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Politics.

FAA has a 58 Billion dollar annual budget, and they cannot find efficiencies to the tune of 600 million?

Sounds like somebody got one of those "don't make cuts that don't create pain and make the White House look bad" emails.

Also somewhat funny that the towers on the block are staffed with non-air traffic controller union workers? The ones that are being cut are currently staffed with contractors (who by the way cost less than the unionized staffs).

Interesting stuff.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[kalm]

It will be interesting to watch these type of things unfold. The federal government is MASSIVE especially, when you can close 149 air traffic control towers without having to close any airports. I wonder who this will impact and why some Republicans are disappointed. Did they think they could cut spending without any impact?:



http://news.yahoo.com/faa-says-close-14 ... 02567.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Politics.

FAA has a 58 Billion dollar annual budget, and they cannot find efficiencies to the tune of 600 million?

Sounds like somebody got one of those "don't make cuts that don't create pain and make the White House look bad" emails.

Also somewhat funny that the towers on the block are staffed with non-air traffic controller union workers? The ones that are being cut are currently staffed with contractors (who by the way cost less than the unionized staffs).

Interesting stuff.


Sent from the center of the universe.

So where would you have them make there cuts?

[AZGrizFan]

Politics.

FAA has a 58 Billion dollar annual budget, and they cannot find efficiencies to the tune of 600 million?

Sounds like somebody got one of those "don't make cuts that don't create pain and make the White House look bad" emails.

Also somewhat funny that the towers on the block are staffed with non-air traffic controller union workers? The ones that are being cut are currently staffed with contractors (who by the way cost less than the unionized staffs).

Interesting stuff.


Sent from the center of the universe.

So where would you have them make there cuts?

Why do they have to cut? The simply had their budget INCREASE cut from 7% to 5%. Now suddenly they can't afford 150+ controllers?

This is a political move to make sequestration hurt as much as possible. This has nothing to do with budgets.