Gates to cancel the F-22

Discussion in 'Military' started by DavidS, Apr 6, 2009.

  1. DavidS
    Offline

    DavidS Anti-Tea Party Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,811
    Thanks Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Ratings:
    +767
    Defense chief to propose weapons cuts

    And instead, favor production of close to 2500 F-35's.

    Wtf do we need 2,443 F-35's for?

    There were only around 300 F-15E Strike Eagles created. Yes, we built over 4000 F-16's, but with the invention of UAV drones, we can do the same job with a drone that an F-35 can do and not spend nearly as much.
     
  2. WorldAHope
    Offline

    WorldAHope Ready to Rock n' Roll

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    415
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +45
    The Byzantine hidden universe of Defense Contracting needs to be much more transparent and responsive to public and military needs.

    It is one of the largest pieces of our budgetary pie, and has too many secrets and too many lobbyist fingers making the deals, and making millions for themselves.

    Obama maentioned a few weeks ago that he is determined to reduce military spennding on costly weapons sytems, but the defense contracting industry is adept at positioning the production and support of contracts/systems to bring campaign funds and jobs to congressional districts.
    Meaning, the military NEED is not the only primary reason too many contracts are awarded.
    It is hard to eliminate some weapons systems contracts without causing unemployment.
    The Defense lobby and contractors know how to protect their geese that lay golden (taxpayer purchased) eggs.

    We already have the world's best fleet of the world's best fighters.
    Is it absolutely necessary that we need to spend tens and hundreds of billions (of borrowed funds) to develop and build the world's next generation of most expenseive jets
    that we can't afford ?

    What foe are the F35s designed to combat ? F22s ?
    Remember the lessons of WW2. The American and Russian tanks were far outclassed by Germany's premier tanks, which were technological and engineering marvels.
    But the Sherman and T34 were victorious because they were simple to make and operate and maintain, reliable, more manuverable, and most of all - plentiful.

    We could carry the fight to the mountains of Afghanistan-Pakistan with drones, or with
    other airborne manned propeller driven ordnance vehicles.

    The B-52 has lasted 50+ years, with continual upgrades.
    Our existing Fighters, teh best in the world, should be extended the same.

    Having the best military doesn't require us to have the most unnecessarily wastefully expensive, despite what the Defense contractors insist.
    Time to put a stop to this gravy train. We can't afford to carry them anymore.
     
  3. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    I heard something about this on radio the other day. The discussion was how the military should be configured for current and future threats. I think the assumption was that wars between nations is unlikely (that's what I heard, I have no particular expertise in this area) so the hardware can be changed because the threats aren't from nations any longer, they're from terrorists and insurgents.
     
  4. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    Incorrect.

    The T-34 was years ahead of German armor, the first tank they constructed to match it was the Pzkw V Panther, a full two years into the war with the Soviets (1943).

    By that time the Soviets up gunned the T 34 and it could again outclass Panthers, and the JS series introduced in 1944 could knock out panthers before they could reach engagement range.
     
  5. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    It's similar to the ideas after the great war when Britain came up with the '10 year rule' stating that no new equipment would be purchased unless a war was forseeable within the next ten years.

    It caused Britain to retard weapons development and lead to inferior designs when WWII started in everything except single seat interceptors (spitfire mk1)
     
  6. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,701
    Thanks Received:
    4,478
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,029
    You do realize that military weapons development not only ensures our military superiority but the technology inevitably winds up in the public domain and makes our lives better as well.

    Military technology, the top secret kind, is routinely 7-10 years ahead of what we call state of the art. I like it that way don't you? We should be considered the strongest nation with the best weapons and I do not believe we should share those weapons and technology with anyone, not even our so called allies.

    So you ask why do we spend so much on military weapons and development, when other countries do not? The answer is simple, those countries cannot take care of themselves and look to the strongest most advanced military in the world. Ours.

    If you want us to give up our superiority, who do you want to count on for military aid, France?
     
  7. DavidS
    Offline

    DavidS Anti-Tea Party Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,811
    Thanks Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Ratings:
    +767
    I agree - military superiority - not military waste. We're getting thousands of F-35s which will likely become the workhorse of the military while our enemies are still trying to deal with how to overcome an F-16 in combat.

    There isn't one country, including China, that couldn't be outmatched by a good USAF pilot in a 30-year old F-16.
     
  8. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    I wouldn't count on that, those Falcons are extremly old and the tech is known all over because we sold them all over.
     
  9. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Wow!

    Now I am seriously impressed that you knew about that arcane bit of history, Xeno.

    You must have read quite your fair share of pre-WWII history to have uncovered that gem, (and remembered it, and understood why it's an important bit of information, too.)

    Given that level of understanding about that subject, let me suggest that you may enjoy Buchanan's new book about the world wars. "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unececessary War".

    Now I am not saying that Buchanan's book is the definitive book on the subject, but it is, I think, an interesting take on how personality and circumstance conspire to change the world.

    I'm thinking you'll find this an interesting read.
     
  10. tigerbob
    Offline

    tigerbob Increasingly jaded.

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    6,225
    Thanks Received:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +972
    That has a nice patriotic ring to it, but it's bullshit.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2009

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

gates reasons for cancelling f-22