New Retirement Plans

[robav8r]

Here is my two cents: I do think the military owes you the same pay/benefits that you signed up for until you reach the end of your initial obligation. At that point they can be free to change it, and you should be free to leave.

OK, good point & I agree. And the same should hold true each & every time you raise your right hand and swear the oath to the constitution - regardless of how many years of service one has.

 

[EODDave]

BigRed,

I think they are trying to draw down as well. The proposed cuts to the Army seem particularly brutal.

 

[BigRed389]

BigRed,

I think they are trying to draw down as well. The proposed cuts to the Army seem particularly brutal.

Yeah, I should've been more specific. Was thinking on how JSF ties into Big Navy's (and DOD) plans for the future, and is indirectly the justification for a lot of other programs.

No JSF-C may cause some people to question the value of CVNs (why continue to maintain, modernize, and build such unique and expensive ships if you can't also afford to fly top of the line aircraft off of it?). No JSF-B, and the number of big deck amphibs is questionable as well. And once you cut those, you might as well start cutting into the surface escorts as well. JSF may be all screwed up as a program, but it seems a lot of other DOD capabilities are going to rely on whatever it brings to the table a decade plus from now.

 

[Recovering LSO]

would just want to point out to people that just because some folks can make more money in the outside world, that doesn't mean you can. I've said it before in my thread covering transitioning to the civilian world, but I've seen a lot of people get a rude awakening on their salary/benefit prospects upon transitioning to the real world.

Valid. My counter: For a 401k, I might take my chances doing something that doesn't involve anymore night traps

 

[azguy]

What part do you find uninformed? The JSF and F-22 were created to fulfill different mission requirements. The JSF is also being created for 3 different services. The F-22 is costly as far as maintenance and the JSF flies when the Lockheed Martin actually builds it right, hence my comment that they fly 'sometimes.'

So yea, apples and oranges.

JSF is being developed for a hell of a lot more than three services - I think that's what has kept it relatively well protected so far.

My point is both are new acquisitions rife with budget overruns and missed deadlines are low hanging fruit for cuts. Look at how many airframes have already been cut, both by DoD and allied militaries...

 

[Spekkio]

Yes, versions of the JSF are also going to be sold to allies. But that only underscores the apples to oranges comparison. It's not just about cost overruns -- if it were, the Navy wouldn't have nearly as many ships. It's also about mission requirements, how good the platform is at fulfilling those requirements, and where our senior leadership thinks the threat is going to be in the foreseeable future.

Aside from the fact that each airframe exceeded budget estimates for different reasons, senior USAF leadership couldn't convince SECDEF Gates and Congress why it needed to continue acquiring more F-22 aircraft given the current and near-mid term threats. Also, if the need arose, the F-22 could be put back into production, and hopefully not peacemeal over 46 states.

 

[Recovering LSO]

, if the need arose, the F-22 could be put back into production, and hopefully not peacemeal over 46 states.

Really?

 

[Spekkio]

Yes, really. While it would cost hundreds of millions to rebuild the infrastructure needed to make more F-22s, part of the risk calculus for canexing the program was that it was feesible to make more if a potential adversary ever mass produced a next-gen fighter that required the F-22's capabilities but not the F-35A's.

Was that the right choice? I don't know and it's probably not a discussion for open forums anyway. But that was a contributing factor to how the F-22 was cancelled and the JSF program continues to survive.