AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 CHECK IT http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_...efense_spending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 You're a moron. The F-22 has been a disaster from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 You're a moron. The F-22 has been a disaster from the start. No, actually it was pretty good from the start. It became a disaster when they decided to put ten more years of R&D into it, to see if it could carry bombs. Typical mismanaged DoD program: drag it out as long as possible, tack on a bunch of additional up-front costs, then cancel it because the unit cost is now too much with all the extra amortized up-front costs, and eat the up-front costs anyway. It should be cancelled...the shame of it is that it was so mismanaged that it got to this point. And the real irony is...the F-35's going to be even worse. The F/A-22 got hideously expensive simply for trying to add bombs to a stealth fighter. The F-35...one "do everything" stealth plane in three different versions that's supposed to replace four older airframes performing six different missions for four different organizations. Yeah, that program's going to be really successful. (And truly, OwensManiac...you're a moron.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS Posted July 21, 2009 Author Share Posted July 21, 2009 You're a moron. The F-22 has been a disaster from the start. CHECK IT You're a moron. You don't even understand the repercussions of allowing China and Russia to challenge our air superiority do you? Didn't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 CHECK IT You're a moron. You don't even understand the repercussions of allowing China and Russia to challenge our air superiority do you? Didn't think so. I highly doubt your understanding of it is any more than "China and Russia are godless commies, so it's bad!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 CHECK IT You're a moron. You don't even understand the repercussions of allowing China and Russia to challenge our air superiority do you? Didn't think so. The F-22, requiring 30 hours of maintenence for each hour of flight time, was not the answer. The F-22 has not even been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. It was a classic hanger queen, that should have been scrapped years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 WAIT A SECOND.....you have a hard-on for "commonality" with the F/A-18 platform, but not for other airframes? The Navy is shoe-horning that chunk of sh-- into the interceptor, anti-sub, tanker, light attack, recon, and heavy attack roles! In two years, an air wing will be a ton of F-18s, two E-2s and a C-2! What am I missing? [no...Im NOT advocating a return of the F-14!!!!] No, maintainability. Not commonality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 CHECK IT You're a moron. You don't even understand the repercussions of allowing China and Russia to challenge our air superiority do you? Didn't think so. Believe it or not, there actually is a little bit of truth behind this comment. There is definitely a reason why we havn't been challenged in the air, and that is because of our superiority in the sky. The logic is that if we stay so dominant in the air, no one will challenge us, hence the lack of need there has been to demonstrate this superiority. If other countries play catch up, and then let's say sell those planes to other countries, then we may one day have to be tested in the air again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 No, actually it was pretty good from the start. It became a disaster when they decided to put ten more years of R&D into it, to see if it could carry bombs. Typical mismanaged DoD program: drag it out as long as possible, tack on a bunch of additional up-front costs, then cancel it because the unit cost is now too much with all the extra amortized up-front costs, and eat the up-front costs anyway. It should be cancelled...the shame of it is that it was so mismanaged that it got to this point. And the real irony is...the F-35's going to be even worse. The F/A-22 got hideously expensive simply for trying to add bombs to a stealth fighter. The F-35...one "do everything" stealth plane in three different versions that's supposed to replace four older airframes performing six different missions for four different organizations. Yeah, that program's going to be really successful. (And truly, OwensManiac...you're a moron.) What four organizations. Only three will use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 What four organizations. Only three will use it. Air Force, Navy, Marines, Royal Navy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Air Force, Navy, Marines, Royal Navy. Yeah if you're going to include outside countries, I believe Italy and Canada also are getting some as well. I believe there maybe others including Israel but not sure to what level they are involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 Believe it or not, there actually is a little bit of truth behind this comment. There is definitely a reason why we havn't been challenged in the air, and that is because of our superiority in the sky. The logic is that if we stay so dominant in the air, no one will challenge us, hence the lack of need there has been to demonstrate this superiority. If other countries play catch up, and then let's say sell those planes to other countries, then we may one day have to be tested in the air again. CHECK IT Stop making so much sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be purchased in stead of the "midair" combat fighter. Less spending huh? Boeing Co. said Wednesday its second-quarter earnings rose 17 percent from a year earlier, when a charge weighed down results. Higher defense sales and lower costs in its commercial aircraft division boosted the company's profit in the latest period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Yeah if you're going to include outside countries, I believe Italy and Canada also are getting some as well. I believe there maybe others including Israel but not sure to what level they are involved. Those are the organizations that are determining the requirements. Italy and Canada may purchase some...but they are not writing the requirements for the program. The RN is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 CHECK IT Stop making so much sense! Your next "CHECK IT" will be your last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Your next "CHECK IT" will be your last. Are you kidding? Starting a contribution with "CHECK IT" is a great flag which makes filtering easier. I only wish certain other posters were as considerate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Your next "CHECK IT" will be your last. Do it, Darin! I'm gonna miss him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Your next "CHECK IT" will be your last. The guy is a nut, but I don't see what he has done to be banished from here. I personally think it is amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 The guy is a nut, but I don't see what he has done to be banished from here. I personally think it is amusing. He's disruptive, and crusading. Tennyboy was banned for as much (though he still thinks it's about his politics.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 The guy is a nut, but I don't see what he has done to be banished from here. I personally think it is amusing. Adding nothing, intentionally, is reason for banning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts