The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 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
EvilFishy       6/18/2009 4:45:29 PM

JFKY, your conclusion, regarding my argument, is FALSE because your premises are FALSE.

I am saying that if Obama LOVES GATES and the people HATE GATES, the people can FORCE OBAMA to remove GATES, FORCE the Congress to REMOVE GATES, or REMOVE OBAMA to REMOVE GATES.

If Obama likes Gates and thinks Gates is doing a great job but FIRES HIM ANYWAY to placate the masses who are calling for his resignation, the people have had their way.

If Mustang wants Gates fired, and he gets enough of his citizens behind him, he can make it happen.

You can deny this all you like but you would STLL BE WRONG.

You can attempt to obfuscate, change the premises of the argument, but you would STLL BE WRONG.

The President, his secretaries, the Congress, etc, all serve at the desertion of the people. That is it and that is all.

There is no discussion of this; IT IS FACT. IT EXISTS. That is how it is regardless of what you may think or what you may say.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/18/2009 4:48:13 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.....

Yeah, and take a look at how those arguments start. It should be very familiar. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I intend yo point out where you are wqrong where you are not knowledgeable and where yoiu prevaricate.   6/18/2009 4:58:10 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 

I don't take your advice just as  I ignore your whining and your veiled threats.and appeals.(*underlined)
 
NOW address the points I raised that show your errors as usual or remain silent on this subject. You seem to have a problem with this concept of answering the points at issue this topic which is that
 
-you said that the US military was just fine with the current state of affairs.
-you said that 183 was sufficient.
-you said that you knew we had black programs to address the future.
 
-I demonstrated by FACTs that not all of the US military agreed with the liar, Gates.
-I demonstrated that it was one front Gates, and not many warplanners and many warfighters, who thought we would be okay with 183.
-I further demonstrated that the underlying assumption one front Gates used, was wrong.
-I further described our current fighter production base status and the current status of our new aircraft development program as to lead times and what could be in the pipeline by the time that the liar, Gates, he, himself, said the threat would emerge and when it would manifest (2018-2012). 

Now what I told you was not opinion. it was fact. What was and is my opinion by your denial of these facts is that you don't know what you discuss, nor can you see the obvious in front of you when it is spelled out in plain language.
 
Its not personal. It just is that you don't have an argument of merit, you usually don't have an argument of merit, and when conftonted by facts you cannot handle, you usually make it a personal fight and try to stray off point to hide that fact as well as save face.. 
 
Well the point is that we are being led by proven idiots and luars who ignore those rather basic facts, and since you agree with them so lockstepo without any deviation, what does thatr make you?
 
 
That is an OPINION by the way, not an assertion.
 
Remember opinions are backed by facts. 
.
Its assertions that are flouted as facts.  
 
Great distinction there which is the entire difference between you and me.
 
If you don't like it, then make some good arguments that will stand up to hammering. You don't hear me whine, when I am wrong; or am hammered, do you?
   
Try to make a case based on what I just presented, instead of whine about how you are being picked on.. 
 
You'll inevitably fail, but at least you will have tried. 
 
Try to create such a logical argument. You so desperately need the practice and the learning experience of how to do critical thinking. .
 
Right now witho9ut any skill at iut at all, you just come across as a better than average educated fanboy.
 
Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       6/18/2009 5:10:08 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.....


Seriously JFKY,
My point exactly about having something negative to say to everyone's posts. The man just wants to stay on topic and is forever defending himself because his opinion is different than mine, or Herald's or whoever's. The above comment is exactly the reason why he is dragged into tedious arguments, why can't we just agree or disagree and stay on topic?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/18/2009 5:10:32 PM
I intend to prove you have never heard of a spell check. Get over it...


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3



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