The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production
DarthAmerica    4/6/2009 3:53:07 PM
h*tp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97D4QTO1&show_article=1

Apr 6 02:44 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs.
Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks," Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year.

The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon's spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces.

Gates will likely face stiff resistance in Congress, where lawmakers are wary of losing defense contractor jobs with an economy in crisis. Some defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. have warned of huge layoffs if programs are cut.

Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.

Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.

Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents.

"It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk?or in effect to run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant?is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said.

The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" figure of $296 billion.

A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals.

------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm already bracing myself for the comments to follow...

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT
DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 1:59:18 PM




Phaid,



If you think F-16 blk 60 is a good idea. Why not go with the current 187 F-22's, Upgrade the Golden Eagle fleet we will keep to Silent Eagle configuration, and purchase the F-35 as planned so as not to forfeit one of the greatest weapons we have which is our ability to form and fight within coalitions and allow us to have a predominantly 5th Gen fighter force the majority of which are capable of fighting low and high end of the spectrum of conflict?





Notwithstanding the fact that you can't upgrade the F-15Cs into F-15SEs (you'd have to completely rebuild the fuselage to retrofit the canted tails) I'm not sure what my liking the Block 60 has to do with the F-15SE.  As I've already stated, my contention is that a high-low mix is what is needed, where the dedicated air superiority aircraft are the high end.  The F-15SE (even new build ones) does not qualify as "the high end" in that scenario.
 
Sure you could. The only question is cost.  My point is though that if why screw the entire world by canceling the F-35 when we can just upgrade the F-15s we are going to keep anyway and use them along side the F-22's. F-15s still have plenty of fight left and are the second best operational fighter next to an F-22.
 

The argument that we can't form and fight within coalitions without the F-35 is bunk.  We do it just fine now, thanks, and it's only going to get easier as everyone is standardizing on compatible network protocols.
 
I didn't say we can't. But pissing off allies who have invested heavily in F-35 certainly isn't going to help either and those allies will have to forfeit those cost and initiate some sort of alternative that will cost them A LOT more money. That may make hinder their ability to contribute to war efforts because they are on much tighter budgets.
 

And again with that contradiction: if we're going to drop the F-22 because we don't need a small number of fighters that can fight on the high end of the spectrum, why then do we want to spend nearly as much per-aircraft in order to get a whole fleet of fighters that can fight on the high end of the spectrum?


It's not a contradiction, you are making a Strawman. I didn't say drop the F-22. I said stop buying them after 187. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/21/2009 2:00:46 PM
Can and will are two different things. It doesn't exist for F-16. It does for F-35.

LOL.  Nothing exists for the F-35.
 
PHAID, the budget is going to shrink. Buying more F-22's means buying less of something else. F-35 is not an option for cancelation and has received additional funding. No F-35 nations has chosen F-16E over F-35. The demand for F-35 dwarfs the future for F-16s. What program other than F-35 are you going to cut to fund the minimum 40 billion necessary to buy 213 additional Raptors at 150 mil each and upgrade 2000 USAF F-16C's to F-16E standard? You cannot do this without cutting the F-35 and the F-35 is essentially sacrosanct at this point. Its not going to be cut.
 
It's not going to be cut today.  But it is clearly in trouble, and we're completely betting the farm on it anyway.  What's more, the countries you're so worried about offending if we can it aren't immutably committed to it either.  Every single JSF partner has reduced or delayed commitments, or not actually made any purchase commitments yet.
 
Yep, budgets are going to shrink, and the smart thing to do in the face of shrinking budgets and uncertain futures is NOT to drop high-quality, successful projects in favor of unproven ones with spiraling costs and unanswered risks.
 
I said it before and I'll say it again: I would not be the least bit surprised if 5 years down the road we don't have a JSF program any more because it, too, becomes unaffordable.  And when that happens we will be completely screwed.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Apples and rocks.   4/21/2009 2:09:30 PM




How the incompetent never include the LOGISTICS TAIL of a  naval task force



 



-like the Tico

-the two Arleighs 

-the Sacramento

-the Los Angeles or the Virginia 

-plus the sixty or so aircraft and the bombs and rockets that the Ford Class have to carry?

 

Sixty F-22s versus a Ford.




Apples and rocks again.




One equipped USAF base versus a Navy task force.is the proper comparison.




This is what I mean by incompetent and someone who is not ton be taken seriously in his pronouncements.




He fails when he ventures into analysis, most of the time.




Herald  











Once again creating his own strawman argument. I'm discussing the cost savings of the CVN-78 over the CVN-68 where savings over the life are clear at about 6 billion if we replace CVN-68 with CVN-78. This incompetent is now building the strawman of logistics tails without regard to the fact that these are also going to be required for ANY CARRIER. Unless Herald is suggesting that CVN-68 doesn't also require:

 -like the Tico

-the two Arleighs 


-the Sacramento

-the Los Angeles or the Virginia 

-plus the sixty or so aircraft and the bombs and rockets that the Ford Class have to carry?










I'm sure glad I'm the voice of reason and not obsessed with a platform. Herald obviously thinks the Ford Class will simply increase that Carrier fleet numbers and USS Enterprise and the Oldest Nimitz class will remain inservice indefinitely. And he has the nerve to call a person incompetent? LOL










-DA 



You are both technically incompetenbt and not telling the truth poster. You were arguing apriori the cost comparison of 60
 F-22s versus one Ford Class carrier.
 
You are also not the voice of reasoin as your arguments descended to calling others liars. CREF above and check a mirror. for the nearest distorter of the "truth" to your person.
 
Herald

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/21/2009 2:10:33 PM

That isn't the article I meant to post. Oh, well, let's go with it:    from the article note the following... 



Based on different war fighting assumptions
, the Air Force previously drew a different conclusion: that 381 aircraft would be required for a low-risk force of F-22s. We revisited this conclusion after arriving in office last summer and concluded that 243 aircraft would be a moderate-risk force. Since then, additional factors have arisen.

Air force has been advised to change their analysis for political reasons. Obama wants to plan his procurement based upon "different war fighting assumptions", ie: one where he can cut the program for political reasons.  





First, based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment. Second, purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming more constrained.

 

Here they state that since they are not going to get the money so they have to change their minds.

 

Clearly, the USAF is reacting to political realities in this piece. Their "unbiased" review had lead them to the conclusion that 187 was  not enough. "since then additional factors have arisen" "unfunded $13 Billion". They didn't get the money. No where does the USAF say that new factors have created a different threat matrix, requiring fewer air superiority aircraft. The piece demonstrates that this is political and the real requirement is for 243 aircraft (that is my story and I am sticking too it!). I'd say that their original assessment was the honest assessment and their new one is clearly not supported. It is life in the DOD procurement cycle.



On the F35, it does not exist yet and as such isn't a factor in this conversation. What might be in 5 years is a thin whisp of a hope compared to an open assembly line with certified aircraft running off of it. The cost of the F22 is getting lower with every unit produced. Phaid shows US clearly that the cost of the F35 is not yet known and like all new aircraft it has teething problems. Finally, the F35's budget will be cut significantly once the F22 is killed.



Bet on it.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

 

The other article (the one I meant to post):
 

ht***tp://lexingtoninstitute.org/1396.shtml


 

AIR FORCE PREPARED TO END F-22 AT 243 AIRCRAFT, NOT 187




Rebecca L. Grant, Ph.D.


Issue Brief


Apr 9, 2009


Print friendly page

Email this article



When Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on April 6 that the Air Force advised him they wanted 187 F-22s, the reaction was shock.  That?s because evidence indicates the Air Force was ready and willing to cap off production after buying a total of 243 F-22s, not 187.  Do the simple math: just 187 F-22s to replace 522 F-15s now in the total inventory is not enough in a crisis.  A total buy of 243 F-22s is the minimum to fill out ten F-22 squadrons for overseas missions and homeland defense.



What happened to the 243 number?  Is the Obama Pentagon clamping down on the Services?  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen confirmed in December 2008 that he and Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz were discussing 60 more, or 243 total F-22s.  On April 7, a reporter said to Gates: ?As recently as a few weeks ago, Air Force leadership was still publicly saying 260, 265. When did that change for them??  Here is Gates? verbatim reply: ?Well, you?ll have to ask them. (Chuckles.)?



Recall how things work in normal times.  The Pentagon budget is a $500 billion behemoth that relies on a formal process derived from the checks and balances in the Constitution.  The Services submit their budgets.  The Office of the Secretary of Defense makes adjustments, then sends the budget to the President, who sends it to Congress.  Key committees call generals, admirals and civilian officials to hearings where they swear under oath to give Congress their undiluted opinions.  



Here?s the dog that didn?t bark in the night.  Last summer, Schwartz said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believed 381 F-22s were too many but 183 were too few.  He promised to ?delve deeply? into the analysis and return with a new number.  Schwartz had numerous opportunities to call a halt to the F-22 at 183 aircraft.  He did not.  Going forward, Congress appropriated partial money for the next 20 F-22s based on the long-standing requirement for the F-22 to replace F-15s.  Outgoing Bush Administration officials threw in procedural delays to prevent the Lockheed Martin ? Boeing ? Pratt & Whitney team from getting to work.  



Then came the election.  Many applauded President Obama?s decision to retain Bush?s Secretary of Defense to ensure wartime continuity.  What few bargained for was that the first three months of the Obama presidency would give Gates a chance to craft what Senator Carl Levin has called a ?novel? approach to the defense budget.  Gates kept Bush-Rumsfeld holdovers in crucial program analysis posts and formed a small team to cut the budget in secret, a technique he mastered as CIA director.  Next, in February 2009, Gates did what no previous Secretary of Defense had done.  He directed top uniformed officers to sign non-disclosure agreements pledging not to talk about the budget process ? even to other senior officers in their services.  Can you picture even a famous budget cutter like Caspar Weinberger or an experienced legislator like William Cohen making a demand like that?  



Schwartz never had a chance to present his analysis for 243 F-22s to Congress as promised.  To speak up given Gates? new restrictions might risk the tradition of civilian control begun by George Washington.  Air Combat Command, whose airmen fly and maintain F-22s and other fighters, is left to pick up the pieces after this shattering break in faith.  Is this what change in Washington means?  








DA,
Have you done an in-depth analysis on exactly how many F-22's the Air Force should have or do you just agree with the 187 because Gates's thinking is along the same lines  as your own?  Certaintly if the AF leaders compromised on the original number of 381 down to 243 they were taking into consideration minimum and maximum risks involved. Being a veteran of the Iraq war I can see how you may be inclined to restructure thinking for today's battles. But Iraq and Afghanistan are one type of enemy not the only one. Gates was criticized more than once in his CIA years for inaccurate assumptions and predictions of the Soviet Union, what if his predictions are wrong again? The 60 more Raptors the AF wants is what they believe to be the right number to fulfill their mission requirement not because they want to waste taxpayers money and look at pretty planes. If the Navy thought they could fulfill their mission requirement with 10 carriers they would retire the Enterprise now but they aren't doing that. You assert that 60 more planes will not make a difference but you don't seem to be looking at it from any other point of view than the money involved. Out of a force of 5000 P-51 Mustangs, 60 planes is insignificant but 60 planes out of 243 or 25% of your entire force means a great deal. I can find many legitimate reasons to have a reserve force of 60 that you simply cannot make a case against other than the money. If JSF is 4x better in AA and 8X better in AG than the planes they are replacing , why then are we replacing the others on a 1:1 basis. Can you answer that or do you have to check with Gates first? 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 2:14:01 PM


Please explain why the F-22 isn't the perfect penetration interdictor. The only limitation it has over the F35 in this role is that it can not carry an 2000lb bomb internally. Not strictly required for the mobile missile launcher mission you suggest.  Note:

 

The F-22 certainly does offer some good strike capability and it better if it hopes to fill the F-117 role. But the F-35 is far deadlier in this role Rocky...


And has longer range as well. Of did I mention that the F-35 is to be used by all three services and allies as well.


-DA 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/21/2009 2:18:50 PM
Notwithstanding the fact that you can't upgrade the F-15Cs into F-15SEs (you'd have to completely rebuild the fuselage to retrofit the canted tails) I'm not sure what my liking the Block 60 has to do with the F-15SE.  As I've already stated, my contention is that a high-low mix is what is needed, where the dedicated air superiority aircraft are the high end.  The F-15SE (even new build ones) does not qualify as "the high end" in that scenario.
Sure you could. The only question is cost.  My point is though that if why screw the entire world by canceling the F-35 when we can just upgrade the F-15s we are going to keep anyway and use them along side the F-22's. F-15s still have plenty of fight left and are the second best operational fighter next to an F-22.
 
LOL, I get it.  You're literally willing to spend ANY amount of money on ANY project as long as it isn't the F-22.
 
The argument that we can't form and fight within coalitions without the F-35 is bunk.  We do it just fine now, thanks, and it's only going to get easier as everyone is standardizing on compatible network protocols.
 
I didn't say we can't. But pissing off allies who have invested heavily in F-35 certainly isn't going to help either and those allies will have to forfeit those cost and initiate some sort of alternative that will cost them A LOT more money. That may make hinder their ability to contribute to war efforts because they are on much tighter budgets.
 
Alternatives to the F-35 won't necessarily be any more expensive; e.g. there are proponents in the UK for buying Gripens instead of F-35s to have a hi-lo mix of their own (makes sense since the Gripen is cheap and BAe is heavily involved in it).
 
Quite the opposite, forging ahead with the F-35 may see our allies so hamstrung by the ballooning cost of the airplane that they can't field it in sufficient numbers to operate it effectively, and THAT would definitely hinder their potential as coalition partners.

And again with that contradiction: if we're going to drop the F-22 because we don't need a small number of fighters that can fight on the high end of the spectrum, why then do we want to spend nearly as much per-aircraft in order to get a whole fleet of fighters that can fight on the high end of the spectrum?

It's not a contradiction, you are making a Strawman. I didn't say drop the F-22. I said stop buying them after 187.
 
It is a contradiction because the only justification you can provide for the F-35 is the VERY SAME capabilities that you argue make the F-22 overkill for our future needs.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Apples and rocks.   4/21/2009 2:21:21 PM
Oh and for those of you who think the Sparky is the substitute answer for the F-22?



The Wall Street Journal is reporting that hackers may have broken in the U.S. military's top-secret Joint Strike Fighter Project.

(Photo courtesy of the United States Air Force.)

Photos (1 of 1)

Did hackers break into a top-secret USAF program?

By Matthew Shaer | 04.21.09

Hours after the Wall Street Journal reported that hackers may have gained access to the much vaunted F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Project, a top Pentagon spokesman told reporters that he was ?not aware of any specific concerns.? According to Reuters, Bryan Whitman played down concerns today that a security breach has affected the top-secret program, but declined to address the allegations first aired by WSJ reporters Siobhan Gorman, August Cole, and Yochi Dreazen.

The WSJ article quoted unnamed US defense officials, who said that similar attacks had also penetrated the Air Force?s air-traffic-control system, in a series of attacks over recent months:

In the case of the fighter-jet program, the intruders were able to copy and siphon off several terabytes of data related to design and electronics systems, officials say, potentially making it easier to defend against the craft? In addition, while the spies were able to download sizable amounts of data related to the jet-fighter, they weren?t able to access the most sensitive material, which is stored on computers not connected to the Internet.

The identity of the attackers and the scale of the damage is unknown. But if accurate, the report could be an indication that the US military is vulnerable to cyber-attacks, launched either by independent operators or countries such as China, which has ramped up its so-called ?online warfare? techniques. Particularly distressing is the hackers? alleged target: the F-35 Lightning II, a next-generation, radar-evading fighter, currently being manufactured by Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and BAE Systems. Although the Obama administration has sought to pare back on the purchasing of fighter jets, the F-35, which is slated to be formally unveiled in 2011, has received a good deal of attention in recent years, not least because of its price tag. The F-35 will be the costliest fighter ever produced by the Pentagon.

According to the official Joint Strike Fighter website, the plane will utilize a Electro-Optical Targeting system, an integrated avionics suite, and ?the most powerful fighter/attack turbofans in the world.? Watch the Lockheed Martin video here:
 
 
 
 
 
================================================== Niw I am just an alleged "Sino-phobe" who sees over twenty years of Chicom information, and data mining, espionage, resource warfare, political suborning of American politicians and financiers, and a supposed LIAR to boot. Why does anyone pay any serious attention to DarthAmerica on this topic? Will someone expolain this one to me. I want an explanation as to why this person's opinions have any validity when the FACTS and the data is so MASSIVELT against him? The guy can't even discuss robotics or aeronautics without me rolling on the floor with complete laughter. Will someone besides that poster please explain it to me? What makes his opinion on this topic worth squat? Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 2:22:49 PM

You are both technically incompetenbt and not telling the truth poster. You were arguing apriori the cost comparison of 60
 F-22s versus one Ford Class carrier.
You are also not the voice of reasoin as your arguments descended to calling others liars. CREF above and check a mirror. for the nearest distorter of the "truth" to your person.

Herald



Herald, you have got nothing to contribute. My technical competence is leaps and bounds better than yours, you can make no argument.  You don't know strategy and you have no clue about practicality. Just like you tried to tell me you though that they should bring the F-23 into service as an intern solution for your SinoPhobic fears. Just like you tried to ram the idea of "Missile for Merchants" down Rocky's throats and a anti-pirate solution. You are nothing more than a techno-fanboy who is(or should be) in a learning capacity. You could not help but to feed you ego today so you posted this garbage while Phaid, Mustang, Rocky, V^2 and myself are all managing to disagree quite a bit without calling each other names or liars. Bring a case that supports whatever theory you are pondering or get lost. You are dismissed...

-DA
 
 

 

 

 


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Phaid Rely   4/21/2009 2:30:16 PM


LOL, I get it.  You're literally willing to spend ANY amount of money on ANY project as long as it isn't the F-22.

 
No, strawman. I mentioned that as a cheaper alternative to 400 F-22s and 2000 F-16Es. Upgrading 200 or so F-15s to SE standard would be substantially cheaper and preserve bit the F-22 and F-35 as is while ADDING additional air dominance capability.
 
 
 

It is a contradiction because the only justification you can provide for the F-35 is the VERY SAME capabilities that you argue make the F-22 overkill for our future needs.


I DID NOT FREAKING SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE F-22 BEING OVERKILL. I said we don't need it in more numbers than 187, I would not be upset with 60 more even though I think we don't need them and that we certainly don't need 400 of the damn things. Those are my positions. My justification for the F-35 is that it can do both high and low end of the spectrum thus ALWAYS being relevant. Phaid, you at least have to know my positions to disagree with them.


-DA

 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/21/2009 2:31:28 PM
---JFKY ---They can, supposedly they DID when they elected Obama...but he chose to KEEP Gates?So the people cannot elect a man other than Obama who chooses to fire Gates? so it would imply that elections do NOT always replace cabinet Ministers...also see ----

You really need to remove the bubble wrap from your brain, dust off the Styrofoam peanuts and put that baby to work because the ignorance you are expressing here is simply embarrassing.

If the people want to replace Gates, truly want to replace Gates, they can lobby their Senators, Congressmen, President, Media, etc, and create enough of a public backlash so that Obama replaces him (this has happened already through out history).

If Obama does not replace Gates, and the people TRULY want to replace Gates, the people can replace OBAMA.

You see, perhaps this is too big a concept for your atrophied brain to comprehend: Under the United States Constitution, the President, the Secretary of Defense, even the lowing GS11 working the stick at some obscure Executive Bureaucracy; all serve, ultimately, at the discretion of the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Should the people want to replace any one of the people in that chain they have the CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS at their disposal to do so.   It is not quick, it is not easy, but it exists (it was designed this way, actually).

That is a Government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

I suggest you acquire a real education before posting further on the matter because, as far as I can tell, all of your marbles are in my bag.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 2:53:15 PM

Niw I am just an alleged "Sino-phobe" who sees over twenty years of Chicom information, and data mining, espionage, resource warfare, political suborning of American politicians and financiers, and a supposed LIAR to boot.
Why does anyone pay any serious attention to DarthAmerica on this topic?
Will someone expolain this one to me. I want an explanation as to why this person's opinions have any validity when the FACTS and the data is so MASSIVELT against him?
The guy can't even discuss robotics or aeronautics without me rolling on the floor with complete laughter.
Will someone besides that poster please explain it to me? What makes his opinion on this topic worth squat?

Herald

If you weren't so arrogant. If you actually respected others and didn't assert your word as law. If you accepted that fact that whatever engineering experience you have does not make you the smartest guy in the room  and that people who actually do war as a profession and have been to the places you discuss. If you listened to people who actually fire the weapons you discuss. If you didn't harbor hatred towards over 1 billion people, if you didn't make up things when you lose a debate such as claiming I said UCAVs are ready to replace the F-22. If you didn't take posting to such nasty vitriolic levels for which you have already been banned and you approached the discussion with an open mind and friendly attitude. Then people would not ignore you, except myself of course which is my own failing. You know, if I didn't reply to your flame post no one would even talk to you. Just think about that and take the olive branch and just stop making this your personal vendetta as others have hinted and/or outright told you.

Again, Warpig asked many post ago. Just make a case that argues your point. Its that simple. If you can post something that supports you position that 60 more F-22 is going to make or break the USAF then do so. Doesn't mean we have to agree. But it also doesn't mean the thread has to deteriorate into the poster-centric rather than topic centric discussions as they have when you participate.

Straight Up
 
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Evil Fishy...   4/21/2009 3:06:14 PM
I suggest you acquire a real education before posting further on the matter because, as far as I can tell, all of your marbles are in my bag.
I guess that advanced degree in Political Science has left me woefully ill-equipped to deal with your "incisive logic"...
 
And can you point out such a backlash?  You knnow one where the voters DEMANDED a Cabinet Secretary step down?
 
Most voters don't vote on the basis of any particular issue or personality, but the gestalt of situation.  you confuse YOUR voting patterns with the VOTERS, patterns.  This isn't to dismiss voters, they generally get "it right", but they generally don't expect Obama/Bush to fire/hire any particular person, nor are they particularly interested in any one program...
 
So again, Obama fired Bush's SecDef...oh that's right he didn't...though he was making a break from bush...I case all the grumpy leftists didn't haveas much sway as they thought...or Norm Mineta in Dubya's Administration.
 
Cabinet Secretaries get hired and fired for many reasons, public opinion is not high on the list....again if it is SO OBVIOUS, just point out ONE Cabinet Secretary let go because of public outcry....
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Evil Fishy...   4/21/2009 3:07:11 PM
But to re-state the ORIGINAL pont...SecDef's Serve the POTUS...not the "nation."  Is that also disputable in Evil Fishy world?
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/21/2009 3:36:17 PM

---JFKY---But to re-state the ORIGINAL pont...SecDef's Serve the POTUS...not the "nation." ---

 Whom does the President of these United States serve?

 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/21/2009 3:45:55 PM

---JFKY---And can you point out such a backlash? You knnow one where the voters DEMANDED a Cabinet Secretary step down? ---

I already have. Perhaps you should read the answers provided before asking the same question twice.

---JFKY---Most voters don't vote on the basis of any particular issue or personality, but the gestalt of situation.---

Irrelevent to the discussion. We are not talking about WHY people vote or even VOTING specifically.

The ballot box is but ONE means for which a Cabinet Secretary can be removed from office (for a whole host of reasons).

---JFKY---you confuse YOUR voting patterns with the VOTERS, patterns.---

I have not confused anything.

YOU are trying to obfuscate by changing the course of the conversation.

We are not discussing WHY PEOPLE VOTE or HOW PEOPLE VOTE.

We are discussing the fact that you made an erroneous assertion.

---JFKY---This isn't to dismiss voters, they generally get "it right", but they generally don't expect Obama/Bush to fire/hire any particular person, nor are they particularly interested in any one program... ----
Irrelevent to the discussion. We are not talking about WHY people vote or even VOTING specifically.

The ballot box is but ONE means for which a Cabinet Secretary can be removed from office (for a whole host of reasons).

---JFKY---So again, Obama fired Bush's SecDef...oh that's right he didn't?---

Who said he did? Certainly I did not.

Who said the people wanted Gates fired? Certainly I did not.

I said IF as in to use Gates as an example.   Are conditional statments beyond your understanding?

Again you have posted a falsehood either out of your own shortcomings or out of dishonesty. Which is it?

---JFKY---though he was making a break from bush...I case all the grumpy leftists didn't haveas much sway as they thought...or Norm Mineta in Dubya's Administration.---

Why would lefties want Gates replaced? Gates is a poodle of sorts who does what he is told. Not all secretaries act in this fashion.

---JFKY---Cabinet Secretaries get hired and fired for many reasons, public opinion is not high on the list.---

So you admit it IS on the list? So now you admi that what I have said is correct and what you have said is in err.

---JFKY---.again if it is SO OBVIOUS, just point out ONE Cabinet Secretary let go because of public outcry.?---

I already have. Comprehension is a requisite here.

 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy