Spare me the talk on JOB!

[Navy1960]

The F-15 Eagle has a perfect combat record of 101 victories and zero defeats. F-15s downed four Mig-29 fighters during the recent Balkan conflict and 33 of the 35 fixed-wing aircraft Iraq lost in air combat during Operation Desert Storm. During the Balkan conflict, the F-15E was the only fighter able to attack ground targets around the clock, in all weather conditions....
Air-Attack.com :: F-15 Eagle Factsheet

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina, May 17 (RIA Novosti, Yury Nikolayev) - Venezuela is considering replacing its contingent of U.S.-built F-16 multi-role fighters with Russian Su-35s, a high ranking Venezuelan general said.

"We are considering procurement of Russia's Su-35 fighter aircraft to replace F-16s, after the United States banned weapons exports to Venezuela," Venezuelan General Staff official General Alberto Muller Rojas said. "At the moment the Su-35 is world's best multi-role fighter."

The United States announced a ban on arms sales to Venezuela May 15. The U.S. State Department accused the South American country of having an intelligence-sharing relationship with Iran and Cuba, both of which the U.S. says are state sponsors of terrorism.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has accused the United States of breaching an agreement to supply parts for Venezuela's F-16s.

Venezuela looking to swap U.S. F-16 fighters for Russian Su-35s | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire

Underlying the proposal is the fact that age and OPTEMPO are wearing out the F/A-18Ds. There is already a projected three-and-a-half-squadron shortfall in the Marine fighter inventory lasting from 2009 until 2014, when JSFs - the only new fighters in Marine planning - are due to replace them. But unless something is done to extend the life of the Ds, says Beisbier, any slippage in JSF will leave the Marines with "little choice but to decommission four more F/A-18D squadrons." Ouch.

The same situation is emerging in Australia, where there are reports that - if there is a further slip in the JSF program - the country may order more Super Hornets, beyond the 24 jets already on order, possibly as part of a defense review to be announced around the end of the year. In Australia's case, if the JSF slips, the choice is to add to the Super Hornet buy (with EA-18G Growlers, Super Hornets or both) or to attempt more life-extension on the classic Hornets. See these notes from Eric Palmer
Ares Homepage

The federal opposition has dismissed new doubts about the capacity of the multi-billion dollar Joint Strike Fighter to perform against jets used by Russia and China.

The JSF jets, for which Australia is likely to pay $16 billion, were comprehensively beaten in highly classified simulated dogfights against Russian-built Sukhoi fighter aircraft, it has been reported.

The war games, conducted at Hawaii's Hickam airbase last month, were witnessed by at least four RAAF personnel and a member of Australia's peak military spy agency, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, The West Australian said.

Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin said he was taking "with a grain of salt" the validity of the report.

Australia's fighter jets 'clubbed' by Russians - National - BrisbaneTimes


Maggie.. Gates is an appointee and I could care less what his opinion is on the number needed by the Air Force. You remember this is the same DoD that has spent over 71 billion dollars on a helicopter for the President and cancelled it at an additional cost of 43 billion dollar and receieved exactly nothing for it. So again, I could care less what Gates assesment is. US Air Force has stated the number needed to fill the mission and that number is for 60 additional aircraft. Further, this talk of "well the cold war is over" so we don't need cold war aircraft is made by those who have zero idea of what they are talking about. Air Superiority and the need for it does not stop with the end of a regime, further, Russia as I have shown has developed in the SU-35/37 a very capable aircraft that is able in most ciscumstances to defeat the F-35 in several envelopes. They also are as of this moment clearly exporting this aircraft to all buyers. China is also develping an aircraft along the lines of the F-22 that will defeat the F-35. So when the Air Force makes it known that they require the worlds premire fighter then our Govt. should provide it to them. In addition the the jobs I mentioned above will just mean that many more people in the unemployment line that I believe our Govt. had the chance to keep from joining. These kinds of jobs are not the kind that you just retrain someone if you want to build another aircraft they are highly specialized and take in some cases years to learn. Again, the case of the F-22 is just a sign of an even bigger issue and that is a congress that has little interest in the welfare of this nation and more interest in it's own welfare. I have contacted John McCains office to let him know he will not get my support for re-election and to inform him that congress should lift the export ban on the F-22 to allow nations like Aurtralia to buy this amazing aircraft and keep these good people in their jobs.

You're just incapable of discussing anything without your ideology getting in the way. The problem is NOT one of no interest in protecting this nation, but one of MONEY!!!! We cannot do EVERYTHING--which simply means that some of the old costly relics (or soon to be relics) need to go bye bye in order to make room for new, more functional technology. How many contracts does Lockheed need in order to keep all its employees? Looks like this one may prove to be more lucrative than some ol' airplane.

Strike-Anywhere Missile Plan Could Get Hypersonic Boost | Danger Room | Wired.com

The Department of Defense budget takes up two-thirds of the overall annual budget, when all of the related costs from other agencies (like the VA) are taken into consideration. It seems the conservative right wants carte blanche funding for DoD but Heaven Forbid some domestic program should require more money.

The U.S. defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2008 for about 21% of the United States federal budget.

Because of constitutional limitations, military funding is appropriated in a discretionary spending account. (Such accounts permit government planners to have more flexibility to change spending each year, as opposed to mandatory spending accounts that mandate spending on programs outside of the budgetary process.) In recent years, discretionary spending as a whole has amounted to about one-third of total federal outlays.[5] Military funding's share of discretionary funding was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen steadily ever since.[6]

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maggie, frankly when discussing things with you and facts are presented to you, I've noticed that once done rather than admitting that perhaps that the lose of 95,000 jobs that F-22 not exactly saving billions of dollars like you want it to with a stop in production you would rather say thats somehow ideaology. So be it, if you choose to call it that then , I cannot stop you. The other thing I would submit to you especially in this case, is you have presented nothing that would make the case that the F-22 is a relic and in fact when compared to every fact I've shown you from China, Russia, US Air Force, you still deflect to calling it my ideaology. I might suggest that given the chance the next time an airshow is near you go, and talk to the people that actually fly the aricraft and ask them what they think. Ask them if they think it's a relic of the cold war. I have also pointed out to you a few other factors Maggie that are involved here. It's my humble opinion Maggie that you would rather see your fellow Americans that build these fine aircraft in the unemployment line rather than admit that anything the military does or needs is needed. At the very least I can compliment Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd and others for their being able to see through the McCain/Levin Amendment and recognize that these jobs are a vital asset to the American economy as well as the F-22, it saddens me that you don't. Not that it will help any but I thought you might like to see exactly how much it's going to cost to shut that line down, and this does not include the costs associated with all those families impacting their local economies.

WASHINGTON, Dec 4 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) defended on Thursday a contract clause that irked the Pentagon's top arms buyer and that could cost U.S. taxpayers as much as $147 million to end output of the F-22 fighter jet.

Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales, also denied it would be bucking industry practice by imposing a so- called "tail-up" clause as part of a three-year, 60-plane deal that could end production at 183 aircraft.

"Tail-up describes the inefficiencies that occur at the end of an aircraft production line," said Sam Grizzle, a company spokesman. "Tail-up costs have occurred at the end of virtually every U.S. military aircraft production line."

John Young, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, said in a statement that Lockheed was planning to seek $147 million to wind up its production line.

"In my view, the Air Force should not have negotiated a punitive tail-up provision which pressures (the Office of Secretary of Defense) and Air Force leadership to purchase additional aircraft," he said.

"Our industry partners generally work to efficiently complete production programs, and they do not seek tail-up provisions," Young added in the statement relayed by his spokesman, Chris Isleib.

Lockheed defends F-22 fighter line-shutdown charge | Industries | Industrials, Materials & Utilities | Reuters

Thats just a one time agreed upon fee by the DoD and does not include the rise in price of the remaining F-22 and the spares associated with keeping the purchased 187 flying. Imagine how many people you could have helped with that 147 million dollars. So I submit Maggie it is you who spends too much time listening to your party line and not investigating the facts to make an infomed decision when it comes to legislation.

 

[Navy1960]

The Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut (Russian: Су-47 Беркут - Golden Eagle), also designated S-32 and S-37 during initial development, is an experimental supersonic jet fighter developed by Sukhoi Aviation Corporation. A distinguishing feature of the aircraft is its forward-swept wing, similar to that of the Tsybin's LL-3.[1] Its NATO reporting name is "Firkin". The sole aircraft produced is an advanced technology demonstrator prototype and manufacture of a planned second flying prototype is under question due to recent MIG developments of 5th generation Jet fighters.

The Su-47 has extremely high agility at subsonic speeds, enabling the aircraft to alter its angle of attack and its flight path very quickly while retaining maneuverability in supersonic flight. The Su-47 has a maximum speed of Mach 1.6 at high altitudes and a 9g capability.[1]

Maximum turn rates, and the upper and lower limits on airspeed for weapon launch, are important criteria in terms of combat superiority. The Su-47 aircraft has very high levels of maneuverability with maintained stability and controllability at extreme angles of attack. Maximum turn rates are important in close combat and also at medium and long range, when the mission may involve engaging consecutive targets in different sectors of the airspace. A high turn rate of the Su-47 allows the pilot to turn the fighter aircraft quickly towards the next target to initiate the weapon launch. The main problem with this, however, is that the Su-47 is at a high risk to spin out of control with little chance of recovery.

The swept-forward wing, compared to a swept-back wing of the same area, provides a number of advantages:

higher lift-to-drag ratio
higher capacity in dogfight maneuvers
higher range at subsonic speed
improved stall resistance and anti-spin characteristics
improved stability at high angles of attack
a lower minimum flight speed
a shorter take-off and landing distance

Sukhoi Su-47 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maggie, again Russia and China are developing 5th generation fighters that will not only match the F-22 but when compared to the F-35 exceed it in every envelope. Gates is a political appointee and I notice you have nothing to say about all the Air Force Generals that have stated the need for the F-22 and I submit that Air Force Generals know a little more about what the Air Force needs than a political appointee.

 

[DiamondDave]

THe F-22 is the world premire air to air fighter and is light years ahead of it's competetion in every single area of performance. To make a blanket statement that the F-22 is a waste of money when the US Military Aviation combat inventory consists of currently aircraft who's designs date back to the 70's as is the case with the F-16 and the F-15 as well as the F-18. When you talk about waste in the DoD you need to focus your anger on programs where billions of dollars are spent and then congress descides thats it's no longer needed and decides to cancel the program and in some cases it costs more to shut the program down than actually produce whats purchased. as was the case with the Presidential Helicopter and the comanche. In fact the US Air Force is flying a tanker that first flew in the 50's and a bomber who's design that dates back to the 40's. This military hardware does not have an endless life span and this attitude of "it's a waste of money" or "what we have is good enough" puts peoples lives in danger and not only that, it costs many and the economic lives of American workers, who represent in a lot of cases the last representation of of the American Industrial base. These are Union workers in a lot of cases and I find it somewhat of a contradiction to run to the aide of any legislation that supports jobs for union workers and then turn around and advocate a bill that would put out of work tens of thousands of them. The F-22 is as I have in many many posts presented without equal in air superiority and those who believe that somehow this type of aircraft is no longer needed have not been paying much attention to the engagements this nation has been involved in the last 25 years. As correctly pointed out, the F-22 represents a very minor part of the overall inventory and the costs savings that congress claims they will save will be eaten up by the additional 168 billion dollars that will be added to the costs of this because of a prior agreement with the DoD to cover closing costs. In short it would be a whole lot cheaper to actually build them, and keept these people working. So what you see here is a presonal preference on the part of those who wish to rid the Air Force of the F-22 for the F-35.

Navy

All you had to say was:

"Chris... You are an idiot"

 

[Navy1960]

THe F-22 is the world premire air to air fighter and is light years ahead of it's competetion in every single area of performance. To make a blanket statement that the F-22 is a waste of money when the US Military Aviation combat inventory consists of currently aircraft who's designs date back to the 70's as is the case with the F-16 and the F-15 as well as the F-18. When you talk about waste in the DoD you need to focus your anger on programs where billions of dollars are spent and then congress descides thats it's no longer needed and decides to cancel the program and in some cases it costs more to shut the program down than actually produce whats purchased. as was the case with the Presidential Helicopter and the comanche. In fact the US Air Force is flying a tanker that first flew in the 50's and a bomber who's design that dates back to the 40's. This military hardware does not have an endless life span and this attitude of "it's a waste of money" or "what we have is good enough" puts peoples lives in danger and not only that, it costs many and the economic lives of American workers, who represent in a lot of cases the last representation of of the American Industrial base. These are Union workers in a lot of cases and I find it somewhat of a contradiction to run to the aide of any legislation that supports jobs for union workers and then turn around and advocate a bill that would put out of work tens of thousands of them. The F-22 is as I have in many many posts presented without equal in air superiority and those who believe that somehow this type of aircraft is no longer needed have not been paying much attention to the engagements this nation has been involved in the last 25 years. As correctly pointed out, the F-22 represents a very minor part of the overall inventory and the costs savings that congress claims they will save will be eaten up by the additional 168 billion dollars that will be added to the costs of this because of a prior agreement with the DoD to cover closing costs. In short it would be a whole lot cheaper to actually build them, and keept these people working. So what you see here is a presonal preference on the part of those who wish to rid the Air Force of the F-22 for the F-35.

Navy

All you had to say was:

"Chris... You are an idiot"

I don't know Dave, I remain hopeful that when presented with actual facts on these aircraft and the impact that perhaps they can make an informed decision that keeping this system is good for the nation and for once not blindly follow every word comming from the Administration without asking questions. In fact members of their own party have the ability to do this , so perhaps one of these day's when the luster of Obama has worn off that perhaps people can once again apply logic to thinking.

 

[Chris]

The F-22 was an incredible waste of money.

Even Congress finally had to kill it, and it is almost impossible for Congress to kill a weapons system.

 

[Chris]

By the time all 183 fighters have been purchased, $34 billion will have been spent on actual procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion or about $339 million per aircraft.

Imagine if we put $62 billion dollars into energy research.

 

[Darkwind]

"The reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater. So it is principally for use against a near peer in a conflict, and I think we all know who that is," Gates said. "And looking at what I regard as the level of risk of conflict with one of those near peers over the next four or five years until the Joint Strike Fighter comes along, I think that something along the lines of 183 is a reasonable buy."
--Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, addressing Congress in February

Nice cherry pick there. The purpose of both 5th generation aircraft is to have the ability to penetrate those nations that have sophisticated radar enhanced ground to air defense missles. Since neither Iraq or Afghanistan have this capability there is little need for their deployment.

Where they will be useful is in those nations where their stealth technology will give them (and us) air superiority.

Again, you too are assuming that countries with stealth technology (Russia, China) have any interest at all in attacking the United States. Secretary Gates has a career in military intelligence, so I would trust HIM on this matter long before I would some senator just trying to protect his voting flock. As evidenced by the attacks of 911, it is no longer the obvious "enemy" that is the danger to this country, it's the sneaky bastards who could take out half the country with a coordinated effort that no F-22 could stop.

Secretary Gates is a political animal and will be doing the bidding of his boss, Mr. Obama. Several Generals and no few Admirals have come out in support of both these aircraft based solely upon the future needs of the United States. It is a fact that those countries in which we will be fighting future battles all have advanced radar/ground missile systems. That is what these two aircraft have been designed for.

Its a moot point right now and will remain one until we elect someone into office who believes that defending this country is job #1.

It comes before any domestic programs.

 

[DiamondDave]

THe F-22 is the world premire air to air fighter and is light years ahead of it's competetion in every single area of performance. To make a blanket statement that the F-22 is a waste of money when the US Military Aviation combat inventory consists of currently aircraft who's designs date back to the 70's as is the case with the F-16 and the F-15 as well as the F-18. When you talk about waste in the DoD you need to focus your anger on programs where billions of dollars are spent and then congress descides thats it's no longer needed and decides to cancel the program and in some cases it costs more to shut the program down than actually produce whats purchased. as was the case with the Presidential Helicopter and the comanche. In fact the US Air Force is flying a tanker that first flew in the 50's and a bomber who's design that dates back to the 40's. This military hardware does not have an endless life span and this attitude of "it's a waste of money" or "what we have is good enough" puts peoples lives in danger and not only that, it costs many and the economic lives of American workers, who represent in a lot of cases the last representation of of the American Industrial base. These are Union workers in a lot of cases and I find it somewhat of a contradiction to run to the aide of any legislation that supports jobs for union workers and then turn around and advocate a bill that would put out of work tens of thousands of them. The F-22 is as I have in many many posts presented without equal in air superiority and those who believe that somehow this type of aircraft is no longer needed have not been paying much attention to the engagements this nation has been involved in the last 25 years. As correctly pointed out, the F-22 represents a very minor part of the overall inventory and the costs savings that congress claims they will save will be eaten up by the additional 168 billion dollars that will be added to the costs of this because of a prior agreement with the DoD to cover closing costs. In short it would be a whole lot cheaper to actually build them, and keept these people working. So what you see here is a presonal preference on the part of those who wish to rid the Air Force of the F-22 for the F-35.

Navy

All you had to say was:

"Chris... You are an idiot"

I don't know Dave, I remain hopeful that when presented with actual facts on these aircraft and the impact that perhaps they can make an informed decision that keeping this system is good for the nation and for once not blindly follow every word comming from the Administration without asking questions. In fact members of their own party have the ability to do this , so perhaps one of these day's when the luster of Obama has worn off that perhaps people can once again apply logic to thinking.

With Chris... never going to happen....

 

[Navy1960]

The cost of each air vehicle averaged US$737 million in 1997 dollars.[3] Total procurement costs averaged US$929 million per aircraft, which includes spare parts, equipment, retrofitting, and software support.[3] The total program cost, which includes development, engineering and testing, averaged US$2.1 billion per aircraft (in 1997 dollars).[3]

Twenty B-2s are operated by the United States Air Force. Though originally designed in the 1980s for Cold War operations scenarios, B-2s have been used in combat to drop bombs on Kosovo in the late 1990s, and see continued use during the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.[4] One aircraft was lost when it crashed on takeoff in 2008.[5]

The B-2 has seen service in three campaigns. Its combat debut was during the Kosovo War in 1999. It was responsible for destroying 33 percent of selected Serbian bombing targets in the first eight weeks of U.S. involvement in the War.[4] During this war, B-2s flew non-stop to Kosovo from their home base in Missouri and back.[4] The B-2 was the first aircraft to deploy GPS satellite guided JDAM "smart bombs" in combat use in Kosovo.[43]

The B-2 has been used to drop bombs on Afghanistan in support of the ongoing War in Afghanistan. With the support of aerial refueling, the B-2 flew one of its longest missions to date from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri to Afghanistan and back.[4]

During the ongoing War in Iraq, B-2s have operated from Diego Garcia and an undisclosed "forward operating location". Other sorties in Iraq have launched from Whiteman AFB.[4] This resulted in missions lasting over 30 hours and one mission of over 50 hours. The designated "forward operating locations" have been previously designated as Guam and RAF Fairford, where new climate controlled hangers have been constructed. B-2s have conducted 27 sorties from Whiteman AFB and 22 sorties from a forward operating location, releasing more than 1.5 million pounds of munitions,[4] including 583 JDAM "smart bombs" in 2003.[44]

The B-2's combat use preceded a U.S. Air Force declaration of "full operational capability" in December 2003.[4] The Pentagon's Operational Test and Evaluation 2003 Annual Report noted that the B-2's serviceability for Fiscal Year 2003 was still inadequate, mainly due to the maintainability of the B-2's low observable coatings. The evaluation also noted that the Defensive Avionics suite also had shortcomings with pop-up threats.[4]

All B-2s, nuclear-capable B-52s, and nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles have shifted to the new nuclear-focused Global Strike Command scheduled to be set up by September 2009


A litte information about another aricraft that people thought not useful and too costly which has over the year proven all of it's critics wrong as has the F-15, F-14, F-16,.


Printer-Friendly
February 4, 2008

President Bush Requests $25 Billion for U.S. Department of Energy’s FY 2009 Budget
Budget Furthers the Administration’s Initiatives Aimed at Expanding and Diversifying Clean, Affordable, Reliable Energy Supplies, Fostering Scientific Breakthroughs, and Preserving our National Security
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced President Bush’s $25 billion Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE), an increase of $1.073 billion over the FY 2008 appropriation. This request will continue investments to meet growing energy demand with clean, safe, affordable, reliable and diverse supplies of energy; support the development of climate change technologies; advance environmental cleanup; and ensure the reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile. The President’s budget for DOE directly supports the development of cutting-edge carbon capture and storage technologies (CCS); begins to transform the weapons complex to address 21st century challenges; and accelerates technological breakthroughs to further the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), and scientific leadership through the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI

Thats DOE's budget, so adding the cost of the F-22's over the life of the program would have impacted that little. In fact if the US had not funded the F-22 at all and used the money after keeping the F-117 in inventory to keep for the hole that was presented when the F-117 was retired to make way for the F-22 you would have ended up with about a half a year of budget for the DOE, so it imagines very little. Personally, I would have rather kept those 95,000 people working and their familes viable and this aircraft in production. I suppose that it won't be much consolation to those 95,000 workers subject to layoff now that Obama will be bringing them healthcare they already had.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cry all you want. The F-22 is dead. And other programs are going to follow. No longer will the DOD be able to sell us super expensive programs based on unfounded fear. I would rather see a couple hundred more Warthogs, than more F-22s. A much more useful bird in the present kind of conflicts.

 

[DiveCon]

Cry all you want. The F-22 is dead. And other programs are going to follow. No longer will the DOD be able to sell us super expensive programs based on unfounded fear. I would rather see a couple hundred more Warthogs, than more F-22s. A much more useful bird in the present kind of conflicts.

we already have more than enough A-10's in storage than we will ever be able to use
Tip O'Neil saw to that

 

[DiamondDave]

We may NEVER have to worry about another battle for air superiority
1970's technology fighters and bombers are all we need

Cut out entitlements and government waste on things like pig flatulence research... not on defense

 

[Chris]

We may NEVER have to worry about another battle for air superiority
1970's technology fighters and bombers are all we need

Cut out entitlements and government waste on things like pig flatulence research... not on defense

The military is the biggest welfare queen there is.

Trillions wasted that could have been spent on energy research.

Eisenhower warned about it.

 

[DiveCon]

We may NEVER have to worry about another battle for air superiority
1970's technology fighters and bombers are all we need

Cut out entitlements and government waste on things like pig flatulence research... not on defense

The military is the biggest welfare queen there is.

Trillions wasted that could have been spent on energy research.

Eisenhower warned about it.

you clearly don't know the amount of technology that is developed for the military that crosses over to civilian use


but then, you have shown you are a fucking moron on more than one occasion

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

We may NEVER have to worry about another battle for air superiority
1970's technology fighters and bombers are all we need

Cut out entitlements and government waste on things like pig flatulence research... not on defense

The military is the biggest welfare queen there is.

Trillions wasted that could have been spent on energy research.

Eisenhower warned about it.

ROFLMNAO...

"IKE WARNED US!"

Yeah... Of course, IKE didn't realize that his warning would be used by our domestic enemies to undermine our national security... at least I like to think he didn't realize it.

What Chris is trying to say is that IKE wanted the Pentagon shut down... When all IKE said was it was critical to maintain a stern oversight on the MIC... To which the only worthy response is: No shit!

Only an IMBECILE would argue against the US maintaining as much of an edge in Air Superiority as is humanly possible; at ALL TIMES.

The only people that declare such to be archaic are FOOLS AND CHILDREN... with children having the intellectual edge, by their potential to outgrow such nonsense.

As the US decays; as it loses it's means to project irresistable power, those who are so inclined to challenge her, will only be MORE LIKELY TO DO SO.

That is human nature and it isn't going to CHANGE; EVER.

What such fools are reacting to, is their history, wherein the US has not been challenged in THEIR LIFETIME. So they think that, that is just the way things are.

They don't recall WW2, and they have no means to understand that for MOST of WW2, there was a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that the US was going to LOSE that war. In the Pacific and Europe, fate fell to our advantage... the history of THAT CHALLENGE TO THE US has innumerable instances wherein events simply went our way, as a matter of LUCK...

This as a result of the US NOT BEING ADEQUATELY PREPARED, NOT OWNING THE AIR and the reason for that was what? Well here's an example of the prevailing attitude that preceded WW2:

The military is the biggest welfare queen there is.

Trillions wasted that could have been spent on energy research.

Very few saw Pearl Harbor coming... a year prior, there were very few signs that the US would be drafting 6 million sons to fight a war on two continents...

On the December 7th, 1941, the US Infantryman was training with Mock rifles... US airpower was obsolete... and again... this was ALL the result of the SAME ATTITUDE of the Advocates of Social Science... that Lil Chrissy is projecting.

Nothing changes... and that's because of the inability of some members of the species to carry their knowledge from one generation to the next.

LOL...

Leftists...

 

[Navy1960]

Cry all you want. The F-22 is dead. And other programs are going to follow. No longer will the DOD be able to sell us super expensive programs based on unfounded fear. I would rather see a couple hundred more Warthogs, than more F-22s. A much more useful bird in the present kind of conflicts.

we already have more than enough A-10's in storage than we will ever be able to use
Tip O'Neil saw to that

just thought I would give you a little image of some the A-10's in storage at AMARG. near Tucson. As for the poster who claimed the F-22 is dead, never say never, because, I will point you to the Carter Administration and it's killing of the B-1 bomber which was eventually built under the Reagan Administration. As I have stated many times in this thread, those that advocate that defense is not needed and at the same time point a finger at the job situtaion have no right to make such claims any further because on the one hand they would advocate jobs while on the other they would advocate killing them. So as long as the jobs are the kind that they APPROVE of then those jobs are fine. Thats the sort of debate that shows a lack of a clear understanding of the actual powers that their very own Govt. are granted. Those are the same people that would willing hand their rights hard won to a Govt. for personal comfort. So again, don't count the F-22 out yet, and keep in mind that the next time you take a commercial flight the very avionics that keep you in the air were the result of some defense project somewhere, and when you advocate cutting things like that you cut your nose off to spite your face.

 

[Darkwind]

We may NEVER have to worry about another battle for air superiority
1970's technology fighters and bombers are all we need

Cut out entitlements and government waste on things like pig flatulence research... not on defense

The military is the biggest welfare queen there is.

Trillions wasted that could have been spent on energy research.

Eisenhower warned about it.

The military is the only 'authorized' spending that is actually in the Constitution.

The reality is, any other people and programs outside the military are the actual welfare recipients.

Without a defense department and the strongest military in the world, all the domestic programs that the progressives bleed over won't exist because the United States will not exist as we know it today.