Joe_Shockcord
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2015
- Messages
- 134
- Reaction score
- 7
I love A10's. I just wish Estes would make one with a longer delay.
Oh wait.
Never mind.
Oh wait.
Never mind.
A-10 issues
- Thread starter Winston
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,748
Actually, I think it's beautiful:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=08a_1334352867
[video=youtube;HfnUkUJaoF0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfnUkUJaoF0[/video]
[video=youtube;1rGcn2XGr48]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rGcn2XGr48[/video]
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=08a_1334352867
[video=youtube;HfnUkUJaoF0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfnUkUJaoF0[/video]
[video=youtube;1rGcn2XGr48]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rGcn2XGr48[/video]
Except the Corps is 100% committed to the F-35.
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,748
Yeah, and they'd be far better off just ditching the whole forward operating base (FOB) idea and going with fixed wing aircraft like the A-10 if that's legally possible for them. I read a detailed editorial column that described how they've only used FOBs a few times simply because they could and not because it was all that mission essential and that the large logistical support effort required (fuel, ammo, maintenance, etc.) even for FOBs makes them "not mobile enough." I can't find the column right now, but will post the link if and when I do.Except the Corps is 100% committed to the F-35.
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,748
The F-16 Gun Pod That Tried To Shoot Down The A-10 Warthog (and the A-16 story)
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-16-gun-pod-that-tried-to-shoot-down-the-a-10-wart-1597577525
[video=youtube;SE1S95Cy7wg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE1S95Cy7wg[/video]
The 30mm gun pod:
The GAU-13A gun (four barrel GAU-8):
The rounds:
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-16-gun-pod-that-tried-to-shoot-down-the-a-10-wart-1597577525
[video=youtube;SE1S95Cy7wg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE1S95Cy7wg[/video]
The 30mm gun pod:
The GAU-13A gun (four barrel GAU-8):
The rounds:
boomtube-mk2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 2,288
- Reaction score
- 2,029
This looks like 1950s technology, something you might have seen hanging under a Delta Dart or Delta Dagger.
And this gives a whole new meaning to the phrase The next rounds on me.
HEI = High Explosive?
API= Armor Piercing?
TP= Teenage Halloween Vandalism?
Yep, an A-10 is like a crop duster on steroids x2..
This looks like 1950s technology, something you might have seen hanging under a Delta Dart or Delta Dagger.
And this gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “The next rounds on me”.
HEI = High Explosive?
API= Armor Piercing?
TP= Teenage Halloween Vandalism?
HEI = High Explosive Incendiary
API = Armor Piercing Incendiary
TP = Tungsten Penetrator
Looking at all the uncertainty in the Mid-East right now and the potential for future uncertainty, I would think that we as a nation would want to keep this option open.
GregGleason
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 4,674
- Reaction score
- 45
Actually, TP = Target Practice (I loaded a lot of it onto A-10's back in the day).
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/pgu-15.htm
Greg
Duh, of course, in this context, because it's got a blue tip...looking at the letters and not the pic of the round...thanks...
As a nation, well, yeah. No aircraft in our inventory has the CAS capabilities of the 'Hog.
Unfortunately, the Air Force, for numerous reasons, doesn't want it. (Note that, by that, I mean "the desk pilots that run the Air Force"). And the F-35 is worth too much many to too many people to ever be killed, even though that's what it deserves.
Viperfixr
Born Again Rocketeer
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 73
Been an active duty airman since 1991 and the Hog was my first weapons system as an aircraft maintainer; I am still on active duty. The A-10 is an amazing platform, but then again, so was the P-51, B-29, F-100, F-4 and the F-117A. We don't fly any of those anymore for a reason. Every great airplane will need to be retired someday. My beloved F-117s are retired, and I believe it was the right decision based on the real capabilities of other weapons platforms and the cost of the Nighthawk. It was and IS the best strike platform in highly contested airspace, as the A-10 is for CAS in a permissive environment.
What baffles me is that we have an entire military branch devoted to air, space and cyber warfare (USAF), yet the armchair generals with either no or recent military experience feel free to judge the military's decisions (all branches) without all of the facts. Happens in other places too.
Don't want more C-17s, that's okay, here's money and a congressional mandate to buy another 20. Been paying for GPS for the world's benefit since the 1990s, that's okay, keep footing the bill forever more without an offset. Have too many bases/infrastructure to support your force, that's okay, we'll pass a law to prohibit you from ever bringing the B-word subject up again. Who listens to the Air Power experts? Cumulatively, who knows Air Power better than them? No one. We're still (but quickly losing ground) the world's most powerful air power force for a reason.
Here are some facts:
- This is the smallest Air Force in the history of this service branch, in terms of Airmen (about 318K right now and still shrinking)
- Oldest fleet in the history of this branch of service (yes, even with F-35s delivering)
- Been continuously flying combat missions since 1991
- There is an insatiable appetite for airpower in nearly every combatant command; missions rarely go away, they are usually additive
- Your USAF Airmen are struggling to keep any resemblance of combat readiness, and many units are falling short
Stop making the issue about the A-10; those that do are missing the point. The real issue is the fact that the services (all of them) have too little money to make do with the missions/requirements given, Congress has greatly limited where the services can affect change in terms of money in a very resource constrained environment (we're far from perfect, but we actually DO balance our books, by law), and the poor-to-crappy choices left are all the maneuvering room left for service chiefs to make decisions on.
No one in the USAF *wants* to retire the A-10, but it was judged a lesser evil in a group of really bad choices leftover. I've sat with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and heard this from his own mouth. When the original Congressional hearing occurred over sequestration and Gen Welsh started his testimony on how this would impact our service, what really happened is the subject was switched to sexual harassment. He was not able to talk to sequestration ever again. Deliberate?
If Sequestration is allowed to occur this Fall, retiring the A-10 will be the LEAST of our concerns. The hollowing out of the American military will be complete if this happens, and it will take us a 5-10+ years to recover when we come to our senses. So, stop chasing symptoms and go to the root cause(s).
The issue is military funding and support, not the A-10.
What baffles me is that we have an entire military branch devoted to air, space and cyber warfare (USAF), yet the armchair generals with either no or recent military experience feel free to judge the military's decisions (all branches) without all of the facts. Happens in other places too.
Don't want more C-17s, that's okay, here's money and a congressional mandate to buy another 20. Been paying for GPS for the world's benefit since the 1990s, that's okay, keep footing the bill forever more without an offset. Have too many bases/infrastructure to support your force, that's okay, we'll pass a law to prohibit you from ever bringing the B-word subject up again. Who listens to the Air Power experts? Cumulatively, who knows Air Power better than them? No one. We're still (but quickly losing ground) the world's most powerful air power force for a reason.
Here are some facts:
- This is the smallest Air Force in the history of this service branch, in terms of Airmen (about 318K right now and still shrinking)
- Oldest fleet in the history of this branch of service (yes, even with F-35s delivering)
- Been continuously flying combat missions since 1991
- There is an insatiable appetite for airpower in nearly every combatant command; missions rarely go away, they are usually additive
- Your USAF Airmen are struggling to keep any resemblance of combat readiness, and many units are falling short
Stop making the issue about the A-10; those that do are missing the point. The real issue is the fact that the services (all of them) have too little money to make do with the missions/requirements given, Congress has greatly limited where the services can affect change in terms of money in a very resource constrained environment (we're far from perfect, but we actually DO balance our books, by law), and the poor-to-crappy choices left are all the maneuvering room left for service chiefs to make decisions on.
No one in the USAF *wants* to retire the A-10, but it was judged a lesser evil in a group of really bad choices leftover. I've sat with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and heard this from his own mouth. When the original Congressional hearing occurred over sequestration and Gen Welsh started his testimony on how this would impact our service, what really happened is the subject was switched to sexual harassment. He was not able to talk to sequestration ever again. Deliberate?
If Sequestration is allowed to occur this Fall, retiring the A-10 will be the LEAST of our concerns. The hollowing out of the American military will be complete if this happens, and it will take us a 5-10+ years to recover when we come to our senses. So, stop chasing symptoms and go to the root cause(s).
The issue is military funding and support, not the A-10.
FastCargo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,528
- Reaction score
- 6
Politics. I've also seen first hand where the decision that should be made is the one no one wants to make because the politicians don't want to lose face.
FC
Viperfixr
Born Again Rocketeer
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 73
Had a CODEL visit to our base not long ago. I spent the day available to them as a 'Subject Matter Expert' on our base's readiness issues. Members and staffers related to military funding and readiness were there. Not one question all day long...not one. Lots of photo ops, however.
Rant mode off...I am going on a 70-mile bike ride to work out frustration and then I'll come back and work on my 4x29mm 4" scratch build while enjoying a homebrew.
Last edited:
GregGleason
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 4,674
- Reaction score
- 45
I agree. The issues regarding the A-10 are symptomatic of the larger issues surrounding national defense.
It is reminds me of how the status of the U.S. military was prior to WWII, unprepared and unequipped. Even Charles Lindbergh was alarmed at the progress that German aviation was making on his visit to Europe before war broke out. It resulted in him penning a letter to an Army Air Corps general (IIRC, "Hap" Arnold) expressing his concerns. But America was safe and protected, oceans away from all of those conflicts. We all know that illusion was shattered on a Sunday morning in Hawaii.
Thanks for your service Mark. I appreciate it and I am sure that others on TRF do as well.
Greg
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,748
I cant wait to be relieved of the burdens of close air support, Maj. Gen. James Post, the vice commander of Air Combat Command, allegedly told a collection of officers at a training session in August 2014."
That statement and the long prior history of the USAF vs the A-10 says all you need to know. Well informed "armchair generals" had better be involved in monitoring the careerist rationalizations of some generals because the military industries certainly won't.
Agree with the first part of that. Congress overriding the USAF on those issues is due to "jobs programs" effects of the military industries spreading their business across multiple districts. Not the way to run things and one of the many issues related to military acquisitions and, BTW, intimately related to the F-35 program, too.
However, about your unqualified trust in these "active duty experts," how many "high level" USAF military meetings have you sat in on? I've been in quite a few and have seen some foolish decisions made that were based upon inadequate subject knowledge and insanely unrealistic industry price and performance projections. I've heard of many more through discussions with others involved with other portions of the same missions.
The fundamental problem I believe is that, in the USAF at least, officers are rotated into and out of positions every two years or so to "give them a broad range of experience," even in highly technical positions that require a great deal of time to get up to speed which leads to them being rotated out just as they've acquired true competence on the topic. Even program managers experience this and in some cases I've seen are so very happy to rotate the hell out because their programs are so screwed up by that lack of management continuity combined with top echelon (those "experts") decisions and/or lack of support.
One small example of many of the so-called "experts" making a radically wrong decision: the removal of guns from fighter aircraft and a total reliance upon missiles, found to be a really bad idea during Vietnam. So, I believe your confidence in "the military experts" is unfortunately misplaced in too many instances.
I'll give just one example from my experience. I evaluated a large display of sophisticated electronic equipment (a very cool toy) set up for evaluation which was intended for the system I was involved with at the time. Very cool stuff, but at a meeting afterward I simply asked, "Where is the requirement for this in our mission statement, how in the hell can it be interfaced with everything else we have without more, to my knowledge, currently nonexistent hardware, and how would it be used even if we could?" Nowhere, can't, unknown. Equipment cancelled, $750k saved.
Oh, bologna. The services are forever buying insanely expensive hardware like aircraft carrier groups designed for the last war. We spend more than the next eight nations combined on our military and the figure would be closer to $1 trillion if defense-related activities not counted in the DOD total are included:
The decisions of "the experts" aren't infallible and, in a some cases, the informed opinions of "armchair generals" happen to be more correct. In too many cases, high level decisions are based upon taking the path of least resistance based upon a knowledge from experience of the realities of the military system, the military acquisition process, and a thus rationalized acceptance of the constantly proven to be insanely over-optimistic cost and performance estimates from contractors. If you are constantly the sole squeaky cog in the machine, making more work and/or problems for those above you, how well you advance in your career is entirely dependent upon the nobility of those above you who write your evaluations. I think many feel, possibly justifiably, that "rocking the boat" may not only end up being totally unproductive in the end, but hazardous to their careers. In short, why beat your head up against a reinforced concrete wall of "the way things are"?
HOWEVER, having said all of this, I can definitely state that I have seen some truly superior officers who are 100% "damn the torpedoes" patriots interested in the defense of this nation as their only job, so don't get all jaded and cynical from what I've said. Like most subjects, it's not black or white, it's gray. It's the real world.
Considering the wars we are now fighting or are even remotely likely to fight, the vast majority of military spending has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. However, there is one expenditure that is precisely "on target" as far as I'm concerned for the current and most likely future military engagements, the one for the A-10.
Yeah, some guy named "Ike" had something to say about that back in '61:
D. D. Eisenhower said:
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,748
Yep. Here's the entire, hugely relevant and prophetic portion of that speech from a former FIVE star general:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. (see note below) The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Note: The actual drafter of the speech, Ralph E. Williams, relied on guidance from Professor Moos. Milton Eisenhower explained that one of the drafts of the speech referred to the "military-industrial-Congressional complex" and said that the president himself inserted the reference to the role of the Congress, an element that did not appear in the delivery of the farewell address.
When the president's brother asked about the dropped reference to Congress, the president replied: "It was more than enough to take on the military and private industry. I couldn't take on the Congress as well."
FastCargo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,528
- Reaction score
- 6
Always loved this story; thanks, FC.
Also, Winston, thanks for posting the longer snippet of the Farewell Address; that is, of course, exactly what I was referring to. In truth, there are chilling moments throughout the speech.
Or maybe that's just because predictions always make sense after the fact ...
:cyclops:
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,748
Only if they were correct. He had valid insights from the various high level positions he'd held in both the government and military and spoke his mind on his way out the door. Good luck at finding a prez today who would do even that.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman. In my opinion, that scientific process and philosophy should be used everywhere.
"Through this and other experiences I began to discern one of the elements of an education: get as near to the supposed masters and commanders as you can and see what stuff they are really made of. As I watched famous scholars and professors flounder here and there, I also, in my career as a speaker at the Oxford Union, had a chance to meet senior ministers and parliamentarians “up close” and dine with them before as well as drink with them afterward, and be amazed once again at how ignorant and sometimes plain stupid were the people who claimed to run the country. This was an essential stage of my formation and one for which I am hugely grateful." - Christopher Hitchens
Last edited:
USAFmissileer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 587
- Reaction score
- 12
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,748
Totally disagree.
Viperfixr
Born Again Rocketeer
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 73
Winston, you're talking in ideals and theories, bringing up points over 50 years old (F-4 guns, really?). The arrogance of your position/words is impressive, to say the least.
If you want to put your actions where your words are, come meet me at Nellis AFB anytime and I will show you where the rubber meets the runway at one of the more critical AFB's in the USAF/DoD. I can show you how our sustainment activities, that I am responsible for, are at the lowest manning and resource levels...ever. I can show you how challenging and increasingly expensive it is to keep the 4th gen fleet flying by showing you torn apart F-15s, F-16s and A-10Cs and how those jets will not last forever and must be recapitalized...and soon.
That is reality, and it is what I live every day. No hyperlinks, no charts from some think tank, but reality.
PM me anytime you are in the area. No more posts from me on this thread...no need to lock it or moderate. Done.
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,748
Just one example of many to prove that one shouldn't always trust the experts. I can list many others more recent.
No, simply experience I related from working within the acquisition system at relatively high levels, not even my primary job (NCOIC at first, later Chief of Maintenance) but something I had to do because my mission at the time involved large amounts of unique electronic systems which were being acquired while I was with that particular unit.
I was once stationed at Nellis. I was in the USAF at a time with similar funding issues, but not while I was at Nellis.
The fact that you're short on manning and materiel must be due at least in part to higher levels in management not having the BALLS to risk their precious careers, stand up to the mostly ignorant pols of both parties and repeat over and over again, "Sorry, we can't do all of THAT properly with THIS. We're eating the seed corn." In my experience, that's typically what it is combined with monetary waste due to the bureaucracy and related incompetence at too many levels of management (excuse me, "levels of leadership").
I didn't give a sh*t about my career or rank, just doing what was right and what made sense, so I'd often be the one to rock the boat and ask questions that clearly turned the thinking lights on and showed everyone at some of these meetings how fundamentally stupid things like, for instance, that downward directed equipment addition that I got nixed with a simple string of questions that should have been asked long before the process had gotten as far as it had and which clearly demonstrated the ignorance of "experts" at higher levels. I stopped enough total wastes of taxpayer funds in my various jobs to cover for my entire career pay and retirement many times over. You're welcome. In the process, I learned not to worship "experts."
The most significant thing by far that I and my team at the time did in my entire career I don't think I can talk about even though I read about it generally referred to in a famous book and on the web page of a peripherally associated unit. I retired with two Meritorious Service Medals, four Commendation Medals, one Achievement Medal, and three Outstanding Unit awards, so don't think I'm some inexperienced, anti-military, civilian dolt. I just call it as I saw it. Always have, always will. EDIT: Forgot to mention that in my 16th career year, I was selected to be a member of a team of four tasked to write the career field knowledge (technical) portion of the promotion test for my career field.
I don't doubt that at all. Wonder if the massive cost overruns ever-present on so many military acquisition programs and the laughingly unrealistic contractor cost estimates I talked about being accepted and used for budget projections have anything to do with that? Probably.
OK. Bye.
Last edited:
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,748
One of the reams of studies and columns over many decades that support my position, here are two from 2008:
What's Wrong With Weapons Acquisitions?
https://spectrum.ieee.org/static/weapons
"The Pentagon now spends about $21.6 million every hour to procure new military systems. As the cost and complexity of defense acquisitions programs continue to spiral out of control, many defense experts believe runaway military spending is unsustainable. Meanwhile, soldiers in the field are being denied much-need equipment, while civilian programs go unfunded. In this special report, IEEE Spectrum contributing editor Robert N. Charette examines the root causes of the current crisis in weapons acquisitions and what can be done to reform the system. Escalating complexity, a shortage of trained workers, and crass politicization mean that most programs to develop new military systems fail to meet expectations."
The Weapons Acquisition Process: An Intellectual Disconnect
The process used to procure major weapons systems is supposed to run apolitically. The actual process is anything but...
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace...cquisition-process-an-intellectual-disconnect
The problem is systemic and can only be fixed from the top down. Trouble is, I don't see how it ever will be since there are too many incentives for it to remain as it is.
Here's another reason there's a shortage of money for operations which leads to jets being cannibalized:
The proposals in the House and Senate to add about $38 billion to the Obama administration’s $58 billion war spending request threatens to create an authorized “slush fund,” according to budget analysts and spending critics...wars cannot be budgeted for ahead of time and require supplemental funding as needs arise.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015...ermanent-slush-fund-116367.html#ixzz3VmnARyqd
And this will only get worse with time for US economic reasons.
What's Wrong With Weapons Acquisitions?
https://spectrum.ieee.org/static/weapons
"The Pentagon now spends about $21.6 million every hour to procure new military systems. As the cost and complexity of defense acquisitions programs continue to spiral out of control, many defense experts believe runaway military spending is unsustainable. Meanwhile, soldiers in the field are being denied much-need equipment, while civilian programs go unfunded. In this special report, IEEE Spectrum contributing editor Robert N. Charette examines the root causes of the current crisis in weapons acquisitions and what can be done to reform the system. Escalating complexity, a shortage of trained workers, and crass politicization mean that most programs to develop new military systems fail to meet expectations."
The Weapons Acquisition Process: An Intellectual Disconnect
The process used to procure major weapons systems is supposed to run apolitically. The actual process is anything but...
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace...cquisition-process-an-intellectual-disconnect
The problem is systemic and can only be fixed from the top down. Trouble is, I don't see how it ever will be since there are too many incentives for it to remain as it is.
Here's another reason there's a shortage of money for operations which leads to jets being cannibalized:
The proposals in the House and Senate to add about $38 billion to the Obama administration’s $58 billion war spending request threatens to create an authorized “slush fund,” according to budget analysts and spending critics...wars cannot be budgeted for ahead of time and require supplemental funding as needs arise.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015...ermanent-slush-fund-116367.html#ixzz3VmnARyqd
And this will only get worse with time for US economic reasons.
VIVA LA BILLY MITCHELL!
Similar threads
