SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production

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

EvilFishy 4/21/2009 6:58:04 PM

----DA---I disagree with the entire premise of your response which is political in nature.---

DA this entire thread is political in nature.

Gates is a political appointee.

Gates-s decision is political in nature.

The fight over the F-22 is a political fight.

The realities of war are but a portion of this debate; when Congress and Executive are involved, it is by definition POLITICAL!

----DA---I do not believe or accept that the DoD budget is being cut in the interest of votes.---

Darth, NOWHERE DID I SAY THE DOD BUDGET WAS BEING CUT TO GARNER VOTES!

I said the Congress is spending literally $TRILLIONS$ of taxpayer dollars to BUY VOTES while they are cutting the legs out from under the DOD.

----DA--- I believe, it is being cut out of necessity.---

The Congress is increasing spending in nearly EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENT by leaps and bounds but is cutting the DOD budget out of necessity?

----DA---You don't have to believe that, but I do. ---

I do not believe it because IT SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE!

Just look at what the Congress is spending money on!

----DA---And I've seen much of the waste. I can tell you that as a tax payer you are not getting the best possible return on investment using current wasteful spending practices.---

I know that but I would rather get F-22s with the waste than NO MORE F-22s and STLL HAVE THE WASTE!

They are NOT CUTTING WASTE! They are cutting MILITARY SPENDING while increasing the WASTE EVERYWHERE ELSE!

This is NOT about Obama telling Gates to cut the fat.

This about Obama telling Gates to cut the DOD budget by X percent (anywhere and everywhere so long as it adds up to X percent).

This is not about waste.

This is about shifting money FROM THE DOD to other idiotic Congressional Pork projects

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 4/21/2009 7:09:50 PM

----DA---And I've seen much of the waste. I can tell you that as a tax payer you are not getting the best possible return on investment using current wasteful spending practices.---

I know that but I would rather get F-22s with the waste than NO MORE F-22s and STLL HAVE THE WASTE!

They are NOT CUTTING WASTE! They are cutting MILITARY SPENDING while increasing the WASTE EVERYWHERE ELSE!

They are cutting waste within the DoD. By waste I also mean programs that are no longer necessary such as the F-22. With regard to waste, say for instance they decided to buy 10 bazillion pencils for $99.99 each for the Dept. of Education. That is a different topic outside the purview of a strictly DoD related debate. Of course I agree there are programs outside the DoD that all Admins and Congress spend on that would be put to much better use by the DoD. BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC. What everyone else except you is arguing is the 13 billion for 60 more F-22's WITHIN the allocated DoD budget. And Phaid is actually arguing for 213 more F-22's and several thousand F-16E's and that to pay for it we should cancel the F-35 program or at least terminate the USAF participation. None of that is realistic.

-DA

Quote Reply

EvilFishy 4/21/2009 7:13:30 PM

No Darth, they are CUTTING SPENDING; not necessarily WASTE.

Was Gates told to cut the FAT in the DOD or was Gates told to cut the BUDGET by X % (by any means)?

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 4/21/2009 7:20:46 PM

No Darth, they are CUTTING SPENDING; not necessarily WASTE.

Was Gates told to cut the FAT in the DOD or was Gates told to cut the BUDGET by X % (by any means)?

Did I mention that I'm also an attorney? j/k...lol Not yet but still. Your question is whats called a "leading question". Your post are overly manipulative EF and thats why it's hard to talk to you. You are truly a smart person and I can see that but stop playing "gotcha games" and consensus can be reached more often than you think. SecDef Gates was told what percentage of the federal budget is available for defense. Gate's job is to decide how to spend it based on what he and the senior staff think is reasonable. If they feel that their cut isn't enough and it causes a national security issue, they have to lobby for more funding. Gates and the USAF senior staff think more F-22's are COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to the DoD's overall mission of defending American interest. It's as clear as that. Are there politics involved. FK yes. But that doesn't make it wrong. It just is. Always was, and will be.

-DA

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Again Darth, not true.... 4/21/2009 7:27:44 PM

No SP poster has been able to present a credible counter. -DA

You have been deluged with data proving the F22 procurement should be continued at least to 243 aircraft. Don't make statements that have already been proven false. It makes you look silly (in fact it is a lie). The only thing your highlighting the article did was prove once again it was a political decision. I think a bad decision that will cost lives. This is about politics.

I would review this opinion if you could provide evidence disproving the Admiral Mullen and General Schwartz's "unbiased" assessment of February, 2009. It would be better to take the money for the 60 birds from the F35 program it it comes to that. Again, prove me wrong if you think you can.

With data this time? Keep it real.

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

EvilFishy 4/21/2009 7:31:13 PM

I am not playing gotcha games.
I am not here to garner points to some imaginary game.
I am not here to win the affection of anonymous people whom I have never met.

I asked you a question and the answer goes to the heart of what you are claiming here:

Was Gates told to cut the FAT in the DOD or was Gates told to cut the BUDGET by X % (by any means)?

Thank you for answering the question.

Your reply: Gates was told what percentage of the federal budget is available for defense.

So, in other words, Gates was NOT TOLD to cut the WASTE; he was told to CUT X % off the budget by any means available and he just picked this program here and that program there until they added up to X percent.

Is that a correct appraisal of the situation Darth?

Quote Reply

Herald12345 4/21/2009 7:34:22 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

1. I didn't tell you a damned thing about the YF-23, poster. I brought that up in a reply to PHAID, ROCKY, GF, and EVIL FISHY in reply to a question one of them posed about a question about the Israelis using an aircraft (Typhoon) when it was raised that the Sparky might be i9n trouble.

2, This faux pas, (which you made) shows; long after you went off the rails at page 16 of this massive ego trip that you are on; shows that you have lost dight of who you are and what your qualifications actually amount to.

3. I posed a simple test for you, poster, that you ran away from rather than try to answer.

So let me tell you what you revealed:

-when cornered you lash out calling people biased and liars without a scintialla of proof.

-you think that your opinion ios sacrosanct and that you are better than yourt opponents. If they trap you in error or show that you don't have the foggiest clu8e as to what you discuss, you try to run away fro0m the point and shout your opponent down.

-when you lie, you try to reverse that and call your opponent the liar.

-when you make a technical comment you don't even knjow whatn you discuss enough to understand why what you wrote is so incompetent that a six year old child sees it.

I could go on, buit you are so full of yourself that you are a waste of bandwidth.

The trouble here is that I am arrogant and can back it up. Youy are arroigant and youn have nothing. You can't even get the physics of shooting right! Pulling a trigger and driving a truck does not make you qualified, poster.Knowing the physics and the technology makes you qualified to have an opinion in this topic .

You don't. Read that again, YOU don't. I'm seriously beginning to doubt your competence across the board on ANY subject. I sure as hell don't see you as being a COMBAT tactician or leader of troops, much less an instructor. You don't have any qualities technical or emotional that I would trust around teenagers to be trained or led. I regard you more as a rather ineffective FOBBIT based on your presentations oneffectual boating and protests here.

Let me give a lesson:

You remember that UAS you cited?

Here is the class engine:

It is the JT15D series.

General characteristics

Type: Turbofan
Length: 60.5 inches
Diameter: 27 inches
Dry weight: 500 pounds estimated (unofficial, based on Viper Fanjet specifications)

Components

Compressor: Axial flow LP, centrifugal flow HP

Performance

Thrust: 3,050 pounds or about 13,000 Newtons
Thrust to Weight ratio: 5/1 (approximation)

For useful payload, you have a lot of guesswork as to wingspan and vehicle length but if you use the incompetent artist impression......you get something smaller than Global Hawk for that class turbofan

That pretty much limits the size of that turkey you cited to about the size of a Cessna 172.

Length: about eight meters

Wingspan: about 11-13 meters (perspective is tough to sort)

Gross mass: about 2000 kilograms dry, 3300 kilograms wet.

Fuel fraction to gross loaded mass: 20 to 30 %

So we get an endurance of about six to ten hours at a cruisiung speed (wings reveal this) of about Mach 0.6 and an absolute altitude of no more than 13,000 meters which defines it as a MALE and not a HALE

That turbofan is not made with an afterburner, so no reheat is possible, and its axial flow desiign is fractionally insufficient for supersonic super cruise. (Do you even know what I just wrote?) so..........

What you got is very similar to the NeuRON, a jet propelled recon bird German and Spanish prototype (it can't carry any weapons) and just about as incomnpetently designed..

Now you want to tell me you are qualified to have an opinion on THIS topic, poster? In anything else either, besides your rather limited MOS?

Herald

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 4/21/2009 7:47:24 PM

No SP poster has been able to present a credible counter. -DA

With data this time? Keep it real.

Check Six

Rocky

I already have Rocky. You are wrong. Get ready to live under the protection of 187 Raptors(Congress Willing) unless you can prove otherwise which you haven't. My data is more current and from the proverbial horses mouth. You lose unless you can find DATA to better represent yourself with.

-DA

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica THE UNDENIABLE TRUTH 4/21/2009 7:51:25 PM

Based on different warfighting 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.

This paragraph covers everything from Phaid's bold but unrealistic proposal for 400 F-22's, Rockies assertion that we need 60 more to EF assertion that this is a move to get votes.

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.

So, the USAF after taking a look at what actually happened and after also considering the most SinoPhobic scenarios, 60 more are not only unnecessary but also leave us 13 billion short of being about to adequately fund defense.

This decision has increasingly become a zero-sum game. Within a fixed Air Force and overall Defense Department budget, our challenge is to decide among many competing needs. Buying more F-22s means doing less of something else. In addition to air superiority, the Air Force provides a number of other capabilities critical to joint operations for which joint warfighters have increasing needs. These include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, command and control, and related needs in the space and cyber domains. We are also repairing years of institutional neglect of our nuclear forces, rebuilding the acquisition workforce, and taking steps to improve Air Force capabilities for irregular warfare.

Basically, the F-22 is only one of many COMPETING NEEDS. Those needs are more important than 60 F-22's. This logic is crystal clear. No SP poster has been able to present a credible counter. The USAF CoS and USAF Secretary agree that the competing needs outweigh the benefit of more F-22's. The F-35 and USS Ford are part of those competing needs. Thats not disputable and can no longer be presented as a valid counter and they were part of the consideration. The same applies to SinoPhobia. So it's time to look for other rational because none of whats been presented so far measures up.

Not Rocky, not Phaid, Not EF, Not Herald NONE OF YOU. NO ONE can present a coherent on topic rebuttal of any of this. At best, you can say you disagree. But you cannot support it with anything at this point that would actually be a counter of equal weight.

-DA

Quote Reply

mustang22 4/21/2009 8:55:27 PM

JFKY,

I'm just waiting for one of these guys to make a VALID case for why we need the F-22's beyond 187 in the first place. That's the core issue. Assume I'm Obama and you need me, to understand in lay terms why we need more of those planes and you can't call stupid or any of that because ultimately, YOU NEED my endorsement. Thats what I want these guys to do. Phaid tried but his suggestion does not work considering the very wide spread consequences of such a suggestion globally. As to everyone else. They got nothing. They can't show in plain english how 60 is going to matter in the context of causing us to lose wars. again LOSE WARS. As in we were defeated because we came up 60 Raptors short of a victory.

-DA

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?

Mark78 and Jesse are correct. The AF desperately needs 60 more F-22. We in the Staff gave the classified air campaign analysis to the 'new' CSAF and SecAF. They said 243 was 'their' number and tried to brief SecDef Gates to no avail. Then suddenly a change of heart over 2 days? GIVE ME A BREAK.

Congrats Gents, you will rip the AF apart like no other 2 leaders. You should have been true to AF combat requirements and stood up to Gates like your predecessors who got blamed for "Bad Nukes" that rightly belonged to STRATCOM Gen Cartright (the same guy also dogging F-22 for Gates). There was NO change in requirements. There were NO new facts coming to light--only the lies of Young and PAE being spread like the plague. We are discarding the future keys to conventional deterrence and peace to the enemy, and buying into the fools' gold of "cheap stuff is good enough." We will pay the price with 100s of dead airmen and 10,000s of dead soldiers and marines for not investing in the best air superiority we could afford. And speaking of "affordable:" In the last 3 months, We, the USA taxpayers just gave 600 times what 20 F-22s would cost to those banks and investment companies who sold US investors assets that weren't worth anything. Now that's something the Chinese will laugh about as they buy/build 500 brand new Su-30/35 Flankers by next year and we're still talking about Carbon Tax and the President's new puppy.

Right from the horse's mouth. Gates made his decision long before Obama took office. He happened to be a Bush holdover and is getting exactly what he wants. He lied knowing he was going to be held over and now is forcing the AF to lie knowing full well he was going to recommend the cancellation of the program.

Lawmakers Pressure Pentagon to Release Funds for Controversial F-22 Fighter Jet
NOVEMBER 5, 2008

Senior House lawmakers are ratcheting up pressure on Defense Department officials to release congressionally approved funding for an Air Force fighter that has been the subject of a running battle between Pentagon and Air Force leaders.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has said he wants the F-22 Raptor's fate decided by the next presidential administration, senior House Armed Services Committee lawmakers demanded an explanation for why $140 million already set aside for the plane's suppliers is being held up.

The money would go toward keeping the plane's production line ready for new orders beyond the current plans calling for 183 of the jets to be built. The situation pits lawmakers against Pentagon officials who argue that, at a price tag of about $140 million apiece, the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-22 is too expensive.

Lawmakers appropriated $500 million in the fiscal 2009 budget toward an additional 20 jets, which the Bush administration hadn't sought. The $140 million in question is part of that money.

Earlier this year, a battle between Air Force leaders and Mr. Gates over the airplane's future contributed to the firing of two senior Air Force officials.

So why were the funds held up? Anyone need anymore evidence that Gates is nothing more than a manipulating control freak?

Stop acting like a child with ridiculous questions about how a lack of 60 Raptors will cause us to lose wars.

How will not building a new class of aircraft carrier cause us to lose wars?

How will 10 carriers not 11 cause us to lose wars?

How will 2000 F-35's not 2500 cause us to lose wars?

Why does a perceived strike fighter with so much more ability need to replace far inferior aircraft on a 1:1 basis?

When you can intelligently answer each and everyone of these questions without reaffirming to all of us how we have not met YOUR criteria for a valid argument maybe your OPINIONS will garnish a little more respect.

Quote Reply

Beazz 4/21/2009 8:58:50 PM

Darth,

Maybe you missed this one. Feel free to tell me how I have no argument.

NO PROBLEM. Those arguments are based on invalid threat assessments that have been revised by the CoS and USAF Secretary. Both now agree that GIVEN the REALITY of the budget 187 is the maximum number of F-22 platforms the USAF can procure without harming other equally important programs. That's not what I think, it's what they said. Unless you can show that they are wrong, it seems they are conceding that the recent past argument is invalid.

-DA

DA,
Come on!! You cannot honestly be this ignorant or think everyone reading your constant ignoring of the facts it? No assessment has changed whatsoever and you know it. The very generals that signed off on 187 had just a couple months earlier said that to maintain a *low* risk 381 were REQUIRED. Then they were confronted by *whoever* and said that 243 would be a *moderate* risk. NOT that any new assessment has occured. Then after being ordered to shut up and not even allowed to talk to the very people who sign the checks they suddenly agreed with their boss on 187. Then when asked about that number and it's risk factor they refused to answer!! That refusal DA, is in and of itself an answer. And that answer is clearly that yea we ain't gonna lose the war over it, BUT the risk level is most definately HIGHER then 243 which was admittely HIGHER then the 381 they actually STILL feel is needed. THEY made the argument you keep insisting on others to make for you here.

You can keep saying we don't need more then 187 and that's fine. But to make the argument that this is NOT purely budget driven is completely insane or extremely naieve. You simply don't go from going to work monday and 381 is what is *required*. Then go back on friday and 243 is now the new number and then go back in after the weekend on monday and it's now 187. That is essentially what has happened. NOT one condition in the world has changed since those original estimates were made just a few short months ago. If anything, the world has become more dangerous.

Just out of curiousity, what is it you do in the IT field? I guess more to the point, do the people you work for stand to gain financially with the incorporation of UAV type tech into the US military? Don't be insulted, but I am trying to come up with some reason as to why you completely dismiss articles presented to you time and time again that anyone with an open mind would clearly see do not support your position. I honeslty do not think you are stupid so there has to be some logical reason why an apparently intelligent individual keeps sidestepping clear evidence. I realize you cannot speak against your boss, but seems if that is all it is you would simply move on and let it go. But you are headstrong on UAV type tech and NO more F22's when the people in the USAF ( and the ones before that were fired for not agreeing ) that actually make a living doing this, do not support you or sec Gates point of view.

Thank you,

Beazz

Quote Reply

VelocityVector 4/21/2009 9:09:07 PM

JFKY,

-DA

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?

Mark78 and Jesse are correct. The AF
desperately needs 60 more F-22. We in the Staff gave the classified air
campaign analysis to the 'new' CSAF and SecAF. They said 243 was
'their' number and tried to brief SecDef Gates to no avail. Then
suddenly a change of heart over 2 days? GIVE ME A BREAK.

Congrats Gents, you will rip the AF apart like no other 2 leaders.
You should have been true to AF combat requirements and stood up to
Gates like your predecessors who got blamed for "Bad Nukes" that
rightly belonged to STRATCOM Gen Cartright (the same guy also dogging
F-22 for Gates). There was NO change in requirements. There were NO new
facts coming to light--only the lies of Young and PAE being spread like
the plague. We are discarding the future keys to conventional
deterrence and peace to the enemy, and buying into the fools' gold of
"cheap stuff is good enough." We will pay the price with 100s of dead
airmen and 10,000s of dead soldiers and marines for not investing in
the best air superiority we could afford. And speaking of "affordable:"
In the last 3 months, We, the USA taxpayers just gave 600 times what 20
F-22s would cost to those banks and investment companies who sold US
investors assets that weren't worth anything. Now that's something the
Chinese will laugh about as they buy/build 500 brand new Su-30/35
Flankers by next year and we're still talking about Carbon Tax and the
President's new puppy.

Lawmakers Pressure Pentagon to Release Funds for Controversial F-22 Fighter Jet

NOVEMBER 5, 2008

Senior House lawmakers are ratcheting up pressure on Defense Department
officials to release congressionally approved funding for an Air Force
fighter that has been the subject of a running battle between Pentagon
and Air Force leaders.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has said he wants
the F-22 Raptor's fate decided by the next presidential administration,
senior House Armed Services Committee lawmakers demanded an explanation
for why $140 million already set aside for the plane's suppliers is
being held up.

The money would go toward keeping the plane's production line ready for
new orders beyond the current plans calling for 183 of the jets to be
built. The situation pits lawmakers against Pentagon officials who
argue that, at a price tag of about $140 million apiece, the Lockheed
Martin Corp. F-22 is too expensive.

Lawmakers appropriated $500 million in the fiscal 2009 budget toward an
additional 20 jets, which the Bush administration hadn't sought. The
$140 million in question is part of that money.

Earlier this year, a battle between Air Force leaders and Mr. Gates
over the airplane's future contributed to the firing of two senior Air
Force officials.

So why were the funds held up? Anyone need anymore evidence that Gates is nothing more than a manipulating control freak?

Stop acting like a child with ridiculous questions about how a lack of 60 Raptors will cause us to lose wars.

How will not building a new class of aircraft carrier cause us to lose wars?

How will 10 carriers not 11 cause us to lose wars?

How will 2000 F-35's not 2500 cause us to lose wars?

Why does a perceived strike fighter with so much more ability need to replace far inferior aircraft on a 1:1 basis?

Mustang

I have an idea. Let's eliminate Minuteman land-based deterrent to pay for additional F-22. We will still have overmatch with SSBN, bombers and F-22 in the nuclear role. And yet that is a war that will never be fought against any rational power, such as PRC, no matter how some may loathe them. (those "some" probably shop at WalMart incidently; I've only visited once, never purchased there -- not ever). Minuteman represents excess capability that we may shed in exchange for projectable forces like F-22/-35.

v^2

Quote Reply

JFKY Wow Evil Fishy 4/21/2009 9:17:03 PM

Sure sounds like Gates is serving the POTUS, rather than the "nation", at least according to you.

But soon we'll be able to remove Gates, even if we don't vote out Obama, right? Start listing those options would you please?

Quote Reply

EvilFishy 4/21/2009 9:27:01 PM

You never answered my question JFKY: Whomn does the President serve?

---JFKY---Sure sounds like Gates is serving the POTUS, rather than the "nation", at least according to you.---

His Constitutional responsibility is to serve his NATION FIRST and his President Second; job be damned (the concept of a man serving a boss who serves a boss seems too complex for you to grasp).

Of course, your feeble mind does allow you to grasp the concept of Constitutional delegation of authority which ultimately ends in one conclusion: the government serves at the discretion of the PEOPLE.

I have said this at least five times and your inability to grasp this simple concept leads me to some disturbing conclusions regarding your mental prowess.

A real education would be a benefit to you sir. Acquire one please.

Quote Reply

EvilFishy 4/21/2009 9:29:21 PM

Bloody software - Typos corrected:

JFKY, you never answered my question: Whom does the President Serve?

---JFKY---Sure sounds like Gates is serving the POTUS, rather than the "nation", at least according to you.---

His Constitutional responsibility is to serve his NATION FIRST and his President Second; job be damned (the concept of a man serving a boss who serves a boss seems too complex for you to grasp).

Of course, your feeble mind does NOT allow you to grasp the concept of Constitutional delegation of authority which ultimately ends in one conclusion: the government serves at the discretion of the PEOPLE.

I have said this at least five times and your inability to grasp this simple concept leads me to some disturbing conclusions regarding your mental prowess.

A real education would be a benefit to you sir. Acquire one please.

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

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us