Archived

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

cookinwithgas

Pentagon ending F-22 and Presidential Helicopter programs

25 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

*cough*China*cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

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

us-spending-2000-2010.png

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

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

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