Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 6/17/2009 1:05:55 PM EST
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4144686&c=AME&s=AIR
I thought it was done for when the obaminator was elected..guess not.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:08:56 PM EST
Will that tie it over until Dumbass is out of office?
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:11:00 PM EST
Such wonderful news
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:11:14 PM EST
Cool!

I figured the congress critters wouldn't let that program die.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:12:21 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:12:22 PM EST
so we can up the number to 199?
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:13:20 PM EST
That was the HAC, then there is the SAC, the full house and senate, iron out the difference, and then...Unicon and rainbow approved, it will survive. Vetoed, then back to the House and Senate again to overturn a veto. If that happens, the F-22 will survuve.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:14:56 PM EST
Wooooohoooo!
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:19:01 PM EST
Now if we only had a current use for it, considering the last country we blew to smitherines had about 4 broken down jets in there "Air Force".
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:36:40 PM EST
Originally Posted By tactmaster:
Now if we only had a current use for it, considering the last country we blew to smitherines had about 4 broken down jets in there "Air Force".


The same could easily be said for heavy armor and our entire Navy. Strategic deterrence and the ability to fight a war with near-peer adversaries is nothing to take lightly. Of course if we all believe the SecDef we'll be fighting lightly armed guerrillas for the entire future of our nation's existence.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:41:26 PM EST
Just frustrating that for years our troops have had trouble getting the proper equipment, such as body armor and IED proof vehicles because of budget issues, but dropping 380mil at the drop of the hat for more planes that Obama won't even use is ridiculous. I understand our need for future technology. But that money would better be used for our ground troops right now.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:43:16 PM EST
Our technological lead isn't as great as it once was and it may get even worse in the future.

Look at the facts: Take a look at America's youth today, and see how many of them, and what percentage of them, are going
to college for advanced technical degrees, in the sciences that built the F-22. Every scientific discipline has played its role in the
design of the F-22 except for maybe the biological sciences. (Although, human factors are of course critical to the design of the
aircraft.) Physics...chemistry...electronics...computer science...materials engineering...it's all there.

Now look at the youth of certain other countries and see how many of THEM are pursuing science degrees.

Actually go out and try to find that data.

The answers will be vaguely alarming. Our technological lead is by no means assured in the long term. Frankly, right now,
arguably the best way to recruit good engineers in some fields is to look for Indian immigrants with Ph.Ds in these fields.

CJ
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:46:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/17/2009 1:48:59 PM EST by marksman121]
Originally Posted By tactmaster:
Just frustrating that for years our troops have had trouble getting the proper equipment, such as body armor and IED proof vehicles because of budget issues, but dropping 380mil at the drop of the hat for more planes that Obama won't even use is ridiculous. I understand our need for future technology. But that money would better be used for our ground troops right now.


So you want the Air Force to be short on planes needed for a WW3 when that breaks out just like the Army did not have enough SAPI plates and MRAPs? Obama could only be in office for 8 years max also. Playing the 'catch-up' game with aircraft is stupid. It takes many years to get a plane into service and if we follow your brilliant plan we would be screwed.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:48:31 PM EST
As far as I can tell, all it authorizes are parts for 12 planes. Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't appear that more planes will be built.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:50:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
As far as I can tell, all it authorizes are parts for 12 planes. Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't appear that more planes will be built.


Authorized to order long lead items for 12 A/C.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:52:53 PM EST
I'm not saying we should never fund these planes or that we don't need them. Seems money is more easily thrown around when more politics are involved. Who cares about the guy on the battlefield, Boeing employees will lose jobs!
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:53:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By marksman121:
Originally Posted By tactmaster:
Just frustrating that for years our troops have had trouble getting the proper equipment, such as body armor and IED proof vehicles because of budget issues, but dropping 380mil at the drop of the hat for more planes that Obama won't even use is ridiculous. I understand our need for future technology. But that money would better be used for our ground troops right now.


So you want the Air Force to be short on planes needed for a WW3 when that breaks out just like the Army did not have enough SAPI plates and MRAPs? Obama could only be in office for 8 years max also. Playing the 'catch-up' game with aircraft is stupid. It takes many years to get a plane into service and if we follow your brilliant plan we would be screwed.

Further, the Army's budget problems are partially due to politically motivated stupidity on our side of the house...

We 'need' upgrades to vehicles & crew-served weapons, but we keep testing small arms (to verify, once again, that nothing significantly better than the M16 & M4 has been invented) over and over again...

The rifles work fine. Just put a stop to it, and spend the money on such things as replacing the M2HB, and a vehicle inventory that allows us to not need to use light trucks (up-armored or otherwise) as combat vehicles...

Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:54:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/17/2009 1:56:36 PM EST by marksman121]
Originally Posted By tactmaster:
I'm not saying we should never fund these planes or that we don't need them. Seems money is more easily thrown around when more politics are involved. Who cares about the guy on the battlefield, Boeing employees will lose jobs!


Now your just trolling. What do they not have right now?
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:56:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
As far as I can tell, all it authorizes are parts for 12 planes. Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't appear that more planes will be built.


After reading that line and thinking about it, I assume its akin to getting the OK by the wife unit to go out and buy 12 new AR lowers, while technically they are just parts, they are/will be rifles. So in this case maybe they got the OK to buy frames or engines or something big like that?
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 1:58:44 PM EST
Workfare for Atlanta....could be worse. I wonder if they are hiring at Lockheed over there in Marietta Ga.?
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 2:04:35 PM EST
Horray for my job.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 2:18:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/17/2009 2:34:15 PM EST by Spenser_Burrows]

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Our technological lead isn't as great as it once was and it may get even worse in the future.

Look at the facts: Take a look at America's youth today, and see how many of them, and what percentage of them, are going
to college for advanced technical degrees, in the sciences that built the F-22. Every scientific discipline has played its role in the
design of the F-22 except for maybe the biological sciences. (Although, human factors are of course critical to the design of the
aircraft.) Physics...chemistry...electronics...computer science...materials engineering...it's all there.

Now look at the youth of certain other countries and see how many of THEM are pursuing science degrees.

Actually go out and try to find that data.

The answers will be vaguely alarming. Our technological lead is by no means assured in the long term. Frankly, right now,
arguably the best way to recruit good engineers in some fields is to look for Indian immigrants with Ph.Ds in these fields.

CJ

In FY 2008, my University awarded 5790 bachelor's degrees. Out of those 5790 degrees, 1455 were in the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology etc) and 549 were in engineering (source: http://www.colorado.edu/pba/degrees/deglvl/fy5/progbachterm.htm ).

Together, natural science and engineering graduates were about 35% of the total, which is about average in the US.

From our school, for every one aerospace engineer (69 graduated in 2008) who can design our next fighter jet, there are a little more than 3 (213 in 2008) communications majors who have nothing except for experience playing beer pong.

Link Posted: 6/17/2009 2:31:57 PM EST
And for comparison, out of 567,839 degrees awarded in China in 2001, 337,352 (59%) were in science and engineering.

(source: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c2/c2s5.htm )
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 2:43:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By Spenser_Burrows:
And for comparison, out of 567,839 degrees awarded in China in 2001, 337,352 (59%) were in science and engineering.

(source: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c2/c2s5.htm )


Yeah, but how many of those are going into making stuff like rubber dog poop and toys that kill American children?
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 2:49:29 PM EST


how about some raptor porn:


Link Posted: 6/17/2009 2:51:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By CCW:
Workfare for Atlanta....could be worse. I wonder if they are hiring at Lockheed over there in Marietta Ga.?


I drove by there late Saturday. There weren't any F-22s on the showroom floor for me to crawl around in.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 2:52:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
Originally Posted By Spenser_Burrows:
And for comparison, out of 567,839 degrees awarded in China in 2001, 337,352 (59%) were in science and engineering.

(source: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c2/c2s5.htm )


Yeah, but how many of those are going into making stuff like rubber dog poop and toys that kill American children?

Well, if they design effective enough killer toys they'll never even have to bother with designing a fighter to beat an American jet because its pilot died from lead poisoning when he was 3.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 2:55:33 PM EST
Good .
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 3:04:08 PM EST
I want to see more raptors so its good to here it's not dead

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 3:07:03 PM EST
I'm breathing a sigh of relief right now.

And Gates is a fucking asshole. I wish I could tell him that to his face too, you know, freedom of speech and all that. Trying to kill the C-17 line too.....




-K
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 3:15:17 PM EST
Originally Posted By Special-K:
I'm breathing a sigh of relief right now.

And Gates is a fucking asshole. I wish I could tell him that to his face too, you know, freedom of speech and all that. Trying to kill the C-17 line too.....




-K


It certainly seems that way. He doesn't seem to want to do anything but cut America's next-gen warmaking capability. No wonder Obama kept him on.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 3:19:44 PM EST
This is certainly an unbiased source.


The additional C-17s are "pure pork," said Christopher Hellman, a defense budget analyst for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Buying more C-17s "can only be characterized as a jobs program."
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 3:24:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By tactmaster:
Now if we only had a current use for it, considering the last country we blew to smitherines had about 4 broken down jets in there "Air Force".


We like to fight multiple countries at a time
Top Top