Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Pentagon ending F-22 and Presidential Helicopter programs

25 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

[url]http://www.charlotteobserver.com/136/story/647626.html[/url]

We were talking about the F-22 a few weeks ago - 137 planes like these are plenty.

And Obama apparently does not have the same problem with the existing helicopters his predessor did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote]But Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed, the nation's largest defense contractor, has said almost 95,000 jobs could be at stake if the Pentagon didn't buy more of the planes.[/quote]

Buy them or we'll fire thousands of people. Great marketing there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

But then how will we survive the Great Presidential Helicopter Wars of 2012?

Stupid democrats... you lack foresight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So I guess Obama plans on taking the bus to the airport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The helicopters are not dead yet just delayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Jase']But then how will we survive the Great Presidential Helicopter Wars of 2012?
[/quote]

:smilielol5:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

so if sarah palin wins in 2012 will she have to shoot endangered species from the GROUND? that's just unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The f-22 was a debacle, it's an amazing machine but really the F-35 is just fine for most requirements

From what my brother told me the main general who pushed the F-22 through congress later was a contractor for lockheed

I don't really have a problem with the new helicopters and they should replace them eventually when the bugdet isn't such an issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Lockheed makes both the F22 and the F35. It shouldn't make any difference to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Davidson Deac II']Lockheed makes both the F22 and the F35. It shouldn't make any difference to them.[/quote]

there are protests being planned here in atlanta for no real reason

also im thinking of joining the air force and just going pew pew with drones if the other agency i applied for doesn't want me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

F'n Gates, who the hell hired that dumbass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Davidson Deac II']Lockheed makes both the F22 and the F35. It shouldn't make any difference to them.[/quote]

Boeing and Lockheed competed for the contract for the F-35, it just so happens that lockheed won that as well.

the whole reason the military had a need for a new fighter was because of the F-22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='SorthNarolina']Boeing and Lockheed competed for the contract for the F-35, it just so happens that lockheed won that as well.

the whole reason the military had a need for a new fighter was because of the F-22[/quote]

I think they are actually partnered on both. Boeing manufactures some parts of the airframe, and Lockheed assembles. There is a similar partnership with the F22.


FWIW, this is probably the right move. The F22 is a fantastic platform, but its hard to see a need for it right now. The F35 will likely be more advanced than anything any other nation has for quite a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

But its...its....Defense cuts! Obama will leave us unprotected!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='cookinwithgas']But its...its....Defense cuts! Obama will leave us unprotected![/quote]

I know you are being facetious, but in truth, there are some areas that can be cut.

That being said, I am not sure I am completely comfortable with the emphasis on small unit warfare. I know thats the kind of fighting we are doing now, but I hope we keep enough standard forces to deal with a more conventional threat should it arise within the next 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

*cough*China*cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

We went into Iraq with Clintons army (the "army you have", not the "army you want"). They did fine. It was the clueless people in charge that thought putting the army in charge of building a peace would be enough that was the problem.

We are not going to become a second rate military power in my lifetime, I can guarantee you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='cookinwithgas']We went into Iraq with Clintons army (the "army you have", not the "army you want"). They did fine. It was the clueless people in charge that thought putting the army in charge of building a peace would be enough that was the problem.

We are not going to become a second rate military power in my lifetime, I can guarantee you that.[/quote]

Actually we went in in 2003 Bush took over in 2000 so he had 3 years to rebuild the army up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[img]http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/us-spending-2000-2010.png[/img]

Military spending did not rise by a significant amount until we were going into Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Squirrel']Actually we went in in 2003 Bush took over in 2000 so he had 3 years to rebuild the army up.[/quote]

But you don't need a large army to occupy a nation when they will greet you as liberators!!! [genius paleoconservative logic circa 2003 since swept under the rug like so many other fallacies]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

And it would have worked if it weren't for you meddling kids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='cookinwithgas'][img]http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/us-spending-2000-2010.png[/img]

Military spending did not rise by a significant amount until we were going into Iraq.[/quote]

You have one for 1995-2000?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

403.7 Billion in 1990
354.3 Billion in 1991
374.4 Billion in 1992
354.8 Billion in 1993
334.5 Billion in 1994
315.1 Billion in 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

1996 307.4
1997 305.3
1998 296.7
1999 298.4
2000 311.7

From the numbers, it looks like the "peace dividend" provided by the end of the Cold War topped out at 103 billion or so yearly, or about 25 percent of military spending. I can't tell you if these numbers are adjusted for inflation in any way. As you can see, the budget generated by the last year of Bush I had the largest single year drop in military spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

We need upgrades of planes that are pushing 15 years of age. F-14, F-15, Herrier. The way the world is, i want some nice stuff for our military

Screw the helicopters, unless we are replacing The 46 and the 47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites