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

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

Posted

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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

Posted

*cough*China*cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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

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

Posted

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

Posted

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

Posted

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

us-spending-2000-2010.png

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

You have one for 1995-2000?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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

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