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: House panel presses Gates to buy existing fighter jets, not F-35s
Phaid    6/18/2009 11:39:24 AM
House defense authorizers are pressing Defense Secretary Robert Gates to consider buying existing fighter jets instead of the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to curtail a severe fighter jet shortfall in the Air Force National Guard.

During a House Armed Services Committee markup of the 2010 defense authorization bill on Tuesday, lawmakers raised alarm that aircraft shortfalls could present significant challenges to the Air Force?s ability to protect domestic airspace.

At press time, lawmakers had included an amendment sponsored by Reps. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) and Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) that would force Gates to consider buying F-15, F-16 and F-18 aircraft with Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, high-capacity datalink, enhanced avionics and the ability to deploy advanced weapons.

In military parlance, this is a 4.5-generation fighter aircraft outfitted with advanced capabilities.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which the Pentagon wants to move toward instead of the 4.5-generation aircraft, would be a fifth-generation fighter aircraft ? the most advanced.

LoBiondo and Giffords?s amendment directs Gates to submit to Armed Services, within 90 days of the authorization bill becoming law, a report on the procurement of 4.5-generation fighter aircraft that must consider that the Air Force has a requirement to maintain no less than 2,200 tactical fighter aircraft from fiscal 2011 through 2035.

LoBiondo said the fighter shortfall would affect the Air National Guard earlier and more severely than it would the Air Force active-duty units.

The lack of aircraft and the advanced age of some of the fighter jets are ?devastating? to the Guard, he said. He criticized the Air Force for not producing any plan to fix the fighter shortfall problems, saying it had pegged its hopes on the arrival of the F-35 to solve the problem.

Under the LoBiondo-Giffords amendment, Pentagon officials must consider the procurement cost of those aircraft if they are bought on a yearly basis, and must also give cost estimates for aircraft bought as part of a multiyear contract. If Gates determines that a multiyear contract would yield significant savings and decides that the Pentagon should be buying those aircraft as part of such a contract, he would have to submit the necessary Pentagon certifications for the contract together with the fiscal 2011 budget request.

The amendment also asks the Pentagon to assess whether it would be possible to recapitalize the Air National Guard with F-35 Joint Strike Fighters from 2015 through 2025.

Full story here:

hxxp://thehill.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83398&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=32
 
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   NEXT
JFKY    Mustang   6/18/2009 3:06:15 PM
Do you remember a guy named Rumsfeld. His resignation was basically called for by the people of this country.
I remember when it was called for by the Democrats in CONGRESS, funny I don't remember the "People" saying much about it at all.
 
Do not think that Gates is some sacred cow. I would say that protecting the countries national interest by making decisions based on reality and factual information instead of one man's political agenda would apply in this situation.
As Rumsfeld or Gates work for the POTUS, the person they must please is the POTUS....if the POTUS wants 240 F-22's, or if the POTUS wants the B-1A canceled that's what the SecDef does.  The SecDef's discretion is where the OMB and WHite House want a X% cut in Defense Spending aren't specific on which programs get the axe.  And as far as politics, and the Constitution is concerned THAT is reality and factual enough.  Sorry if that bothers you, but the Policy of the POTUS IS the policy of SecDef whether or no you agree or not.  As Obama said, "I won." When your candidate wins policy can change....it's what and why we have elections for.
 
But then again you seem to approve of your own agenda, because I have seen you disagree with everyone on every topic you have chimed in on. I commend Darth, at least when we disagree he is cordial enough to back it up with a reasonable explanation. Exactly what is your position on the state of our tactical requirements, I'm curious to hear this.
 
I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO HAVE AN OPINION....I know enough of about Politics, the US Constitution, and such to have an opinion.  And my opinion is to call for a Cabinet level firing is childish, DC politics doesn't work that way. 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       6/18/2009 3:11:19 PM
Once more; next we use flash cards and bright colors:

1) The President CAN fire Cabinet Secretaries, under secretaries, and if he really, really, wants to, any executive official he wants. The lower down the food chain he goes, the more creative he has to be.

2) If the PEOPLE want the President to remove a Cabinet secretary, they CAN via one of at least three legal ways:

-Lobby the Congress to impeach the official

-Lobby the President to remove the official

-VOTE OUT THE PRESIDENT and vote in a man who will remove that official.

Donald Rumsfeld is the most obvious official who was removed due to public outcry but some secretaries have been removed due to the public outcry they would produce by their actions: Edmund Randolph is one such example.

3) A Government official may be allowed to resign when faced with termination. This is a courtesy but it is still a firing. In fact, the Federal Government actually puts a notation in the jacket of the Government employee stating the resignation was on the heels of a firing which prevents said federal employee from employment in another government agency.

4) Most importantly: the US Government, the ENTIRE US GOVERNMENT serves at the discretion of the US PEOPLE. There IS NOT A SINGLE GOVERNMENT STOOGE, ANYWHERE, who cannot be removed from office by the people of the United States of American one way or another. Period. End of story. Fin.

I am glad you are glad that I provided the education you should have received in grade school JFKY; the invoice for services rendered is in the mail boyo.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Herald reply   6/18/2009 3:22:38 PM

I don't take your advice.  

Herald 



Great, then we have nothing left to talk about. That's both your choice and our mutual loss. Now, since we will not reach any sort of agreement with each other, may we move on as normal forum members do when they have a difference of opinion or do you intend to keep flaming threads until the mods ban you? Continuing this is just plain childish.

What do you not understand about it is my intention not to directly discuss these topics with you because it derails threads and my ONLY request of you is to not respond directly to me personally? I have no quarrel with your opinion on an issue but what I have to learn, how ignorant I am, or any of that other  PERSONAL BULLSHIT you keep inserting needs to STOP.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       6/18/2009 3:26:33 PM

Once more; next we use flash cards and bright colors:
1) The President CAN fire Cabinet Secretaries, under secretaries, and if he really, really, wants to, any executive official he wants. The lower down the food chain he goes, the more creative he has to be.
Funny I don't recall saying otherwise....As to THIS point, as Gates is carrying out his masters desires, calling for his firing is calling for the removal of Obama.  Since that isn't going to happen...it's pointless to call for his firing.
2) If the PEOPLE want the President to remove a Cabinet secretary, they CAN via one of at least three legal ways:

-Lobby the Congress to impeach the official

Yeah that happens all the time, the roads are choked with officials that the People have called upon the POTUS to fire.

-Lobby the President to remove the official

Yeah, they can....and every now and then the POTUS listens....of course it's not "the People" it's the RIGHT people, Congress, constituent groups....because the POTUS is concerned with 50% votes in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and securing 270 Electoral votes.  If your group doesn't advance or impede that desire, then your desire for any official's head is fairly small.

-VOTE OUT THE PRESIDENT and vote in a man who will remove that official.

Which is the USUAL approach.  Again thank you for pointing out the OBVIOUS.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       6/18/2009 3:42:59 PM
Let us sum um your arguments thus far:

You say the RIGHT PEOPLE can remove a Cabinet Secretary but, at the same time, the PEOPLE cannot remove a Cabinet Secretary (the RIGHT people are American citizens are they not?) despite the fact that there are MANY mechanisms, LEGAL mechanisms in place for the people to do so.

You imply that the fact that impeachment proceedings of Executive officials does not happen often that it some how does not count despite the fact that it does and is a measure of recourse that CAN BE USED legally.

You say or imply that something is not in the Constitution or Constitutional if the exact words are not in the Constitution itself (a document made legendary by its brevity).

The people of the United States of America can remove a Cabinet Secretary if they really, really, want to do so. Your contention they could not is FALSE for the reasons I have already outlined.

The best argument you can bring to bear is that it does not happen all that often. This of course does not mean anything other than President-s are generally smart enough not to put a complete moron in a position where he will piss off so many Americans (although it still happens) forcing the President to do something.

The only excuse I can see for such blatant silliness and dissonance is pride. Of course that is being generous. Pride is a terrible thing JFKY; I suggest you dump some and embrace logic.
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       6/18/2009 4:02:17 PM
I remember when it was called for by the Democrats in CONGRESS, funny I don't remember the "People" saying much about it at all.
 
Who do you thinks places the Democrats in power, "the people", who elects politicians, "the people", whose approval rating determines whether or not Obama is elected for another term, "the people". Should Congress be forced to make better decisions for the countries best interest, why would they want to keep a SecDef that is incompetant?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       6/18/2009 4:03:19 PM

Let us sum um your arguments thus far:

You say the RIGHT PEOPLE can remove a Cabinet Secretary but, at the same time, the PEOPLE cannot remove a Cabinet Secretary (the RIGHT people are American citizens are they not?) despite the fact that there are MANY mechanisms, LEGAL mechanisms in place for the people to do so.

Actually I'm saying the fairly unobjectionable thing...that THE PEOPLE have NO Constitutional Powers to remove Cabinet officials....via politics, which involves the governing coalition CERTAIN people may have Cabinet officers removed.  I think anyone familiar with politics would find that unobjectionable.  I am simply pointing out that the PEOPLE can elect a POTUS or a Representative or a Senator...they have no structural power to impel the replacement of a Cabinet official.  Who works for the POTUS.  Now if enough people, within the governing coalition feel a Cabinet official has to go, then s/he hits the bricks, but that's POLITCS to be distinguished from the  US Constitution.


You imply that the fact that impeachment proceedings of Executive officials does not happen often that it some how does not count despite the fact that it does and is a measure of recourse that CAN BE USED legally.

It's also possible that when you drop an object that it will not fall towards the Centre of the Earth, Gravity is probabilistic....BUT 99.9999999999999999999999% of the time it does...just because SOMETHING can happen does not mean that it will happen or that it is even the usual course of events.  Beyond Alcee Hastings, Nixon and Clinton would you care to discuss the number of impeachments undertaken?  I can't think of a SINGLE Cabinet officer impeached...so whilst it COULD happen it almost never does, and in modern memory has NOT happened.  So, practically speaking, it is a pointless thing to discuss.  If you like to console yourself with pointless things and courses of action, feel free.

You say or imply that something is not in the Constitution or Constitutional if the exact words are not in the Constitution itself (a document made legendary by its brevity).

I haven't a CLUE as to what you are saying here....please explain where I have said anything about something NOT being in the Constitution.

The people of the United States of America can remove a Cabinet Secretary if they really, really, want to do so. Your contention they could not is FALSE for the reasons I have already outlined.


The best argument you can bring to bear is that it does not happen all that often. This of course does not mean anything other than President-s are generally smart enough not to put a complete moron in a position where he will piss off so many Americans (although it still happens) forcing the President to do something.


The only excuse I can see for such blatant silliness and dissonance is pride. Of course that is being generous. Pride is a terrible thing JFKY; I suggest you dump some and embrace logic.

I suggest you leave the pedantic attitude at home and begin to read for comprehension and try to grasp how government WORKS rather than simply quoting obscure and articles of the Constitution at me.

Unless you really think Gates can be fired.....in anything under some Gotterdammarung situation or in a process that involves less than years and scandal. 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Mustang   6/18/2009 4:08:27 PM

But as MOST of THE PEOPLE didn't vote, and since only some of those who voted voted for the Democrats, it wasn't THE PEOPLE, it was a number of democratic activists...Not the much bally-hooed PEOPLE.

 
I believe at the end of the day that is what you are saying....I'm sorry I'm unaware of the THE PEOPLE, speaking, either in the US or in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea speaking or doing anything...people, activists and elites act and speak, but the People are remarkably quite, and inert.....
 
Everyone likes to cloak themselves in THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE...by which they mean,  "Do what I say," but what they mean is "I got elected and you should listen to me."
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    JFKY / EvilFishy   6/18/2009 4:12:36 PM
Seriously, guys, take the constitutional hairsplitting somewhere else.  Nobody gives an oink about the whys and wherefores of firing cabinet secretaries.  The discussion is about the policy that Gates is pursuing; some of us feel that it is bad policy and some feel that it is good.   Debating whether and how a Secretary of Defense can be fired is irrelevant to the topic, and arguing that people should just accept the decisions the Secretary of Defense makes because the President won the election is simply wrong since clearly Congress has the final say in any case.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       6/18/2009 4:18:30 PM

Yeah JFKY, you can say the same thing all day long. You were wrong the first time you said it, you were wrong the fourth time you said it, and you are wrong now.

Simply repeating the same nonsense does not somehow imbue the nonsense with truth, reason, or fact.

The PEOPLE of the United States of American are the President, the Cabinet Secretaries, the Senators, the Representatives, the Captains, Colonels, the Gs-13 grunts, the E-11s.

The PEOPLE are the ones who are GOVERNMENT and they are put there by their FELLOW PEOPLE; American citizens.

They serve the PEOPLE and at the discretion of the PEOPLE.

When their fellow citizens decide it is time for them to go, they can tell them to LEAVE via various LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL mechanisms that we have in our government.

What about this is so hard for you to understand?

You are caught up on the line of succession: WE THE PEOPLE are the ultimate boss of each and EVERY Government employee. Period.

You are getting hung up on the PROCESS. Your simple mind tells you that I cannot pick up the phone, call person X and get person Y fired. Ergo, I am not his boss and I cannot have him fired.

That is YOUR problem with comprehension and banal reasoning. Our government does not work that way. Governments CANNOT work that way. But governments need accountability; a Government that cannot be removed by the people, not counting force, is a tyranny.

To guard against a tyranny but prevent anarchy (the other end of the spectrum), the founders put in place CHECKS for the PEOPLE to use to remove their government.

THERE IS NOT ONE PERSON WORKING IN THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WHO CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BY THE PEOPLE BY A MEANS PROVIDED BY THE US CONSTITUTION.

Period. End of Story. Fin.

You can argue the HOW, the TME required to fire that person, and the protocols and procedure but you cannot argue AGAINST this simple premise because it is the HEART of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; it was CREATED THIS WAY ON PURPOSE.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/18/2009 4:21:22 PM

Seriously, guys, take the constitutional hairsplitting somewhere else.  Nobody gives an oink about the whys and wherefores of firing cabinet secretaries.  The discussion is about the policy that Gates is pursuing; some of us feel that it is bad policy and some feel that it is good.   Debating whether and how a Secretary of Defense can be fired is irrelevant to the topic, and arguing that people should just accept the decisions the Secretary of Defense makes because the President won the election is simply wrong since clearly Congress has the final say in any case.

CONCUR. The boards are not here to flame, quibble or pick fights. Especially if it's off topic.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Phaid/Darth   6/18/2009 4:26:26 PM
When other threads stay on topic I might take your advice.....
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Evil Fishy...   6/18/2009 4:30:01 PM
Only in a very abstract manner...but if it will make you feel better I agree.
 
Now who is going "fire" Gates?
 
Oh that's right Obama....
 
This began as a POLICY dispute between Mustang and Gates...wherein Mustang foolishly called for Gates to be "fired."  What Mustang wants is a different election result with, possibly, a different defense policy.  Sadly, for Mustang, that isn't going to occur for another 3 years.  So fewer calls for "firing" and more calls for different policy.  Although, given the makeup up of COngress that may not be all that easy either.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Evil Fishy...   6/18/2009 4:30:57 PM



Seriously, guys, take the constitutional hairsplitting somewhere else.  Nobody gives an oink about the whys and wherefores of firing cabinet secretaries.  The discussion is about the policy that Gates is pursuing; some of us feel that it is bad policy and some feel that it is good.   Debating whether and how a Secretary of Defense can be fired is irrelevant to the topic, and arguing that people should just accept the decisions the Secretary of Defense makes because the President won the election is simply wrong since clearly Congress has the final say in any case.



CONCUR. The boards are not here to flame, quibble or pick fights. Especially if it's off topic.




-DA 



That's a hoot coming from Darth who can not help but get involved in tedious arguments with Herald.....
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       6/18/2009 4:32:12 PM

Phaid, if you cannot understand the BASIC Constitutional premise behind the PEOPLE being the ultimate boss of the people in Government, there is not POINT to even discussing this.

That is the FOUNDATION of this argument and every argument regarding anything Government related.

That is the REASON you are seeing the --I WON-- argument used as a LEGITIMATE argument: they do not understand the Constitution, their system of government, and they really think the President can do as he damn well pleases; the people he serves be damned.

Note: by YOU I am not referring to YOU Phaid but people such as JFKY whose understanding of Government is remarkably shallow and lacking.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   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