backtop


Print 122 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on Apr 21 at 9:36 PM

Even though the project is overbudget and still delayed, the USAF will continue to show faith in the Lockheed Martin F-35

The United States Air Force confirmed it will move forward with F-35 Joint Strike Fighter adoption in the future, despite numerous delays and budget issues related to development. The F-35 is expected to push the F-15, F-16 and A-10 programs closer to retirement, with the Air Force currently uninterested in launching additional programs to extend the lifeline of any of the fighters.

Recent Air Force budget outlines indicates $70 billion will be used to purchase 602 F-35 Lightning II aircraft over the net 10 years.  

The F-35 was expected to enter operational capability in 2013, but has been pushed back until 2016.  Until the F-35 is available, the Air Force will continue to repair and maintain its F-15s, F-16s and A-10s, according to military testimony in front of the air-land subcommittee controlled by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"The Air Force is committed to the [F-35] Joint Strike Fighter to be our solution to recapitalization," noted Lt. Gen Mark Shackleford, USAF military deputy for acquisition.  "We are focused on the fifth-generation fighter."

Lockheed Martin is under additional scrutiny to get the struggling JSF program back on track, as the USAF, Navy and Marine Corps anxiously await F-35 rollout.

The Marine Corps also said it will stay committed to the JSF program -- USMC is expected to receive the F-35B Lightning II -- but also urged the military contractor to make improvements.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

F-15C
By runwave87 on 4/15/2010 8:48:08 AM , Rating: 2
Please note the F-15C model will still be retiring this year from active duty. They are currently being transferred to guard units.




RE: F-15C
By shin0bi272 on 4/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: F-15C
By MadMan007 on 4/15/2010 9:43:32 AM , Rating: 5
The F-22 cuts were set under Bush and Robert Gates, the current SecDef was Bush's SecDef as well. The only dope smoking fool here seems to be you since it's given you delusions and paranoia.


RE: F-15C
By gamerk2 on 4/15/2010 10:16:15 AM , Rating: 3
Hence, why we have newer F-15E's.

The JSF program has balloned so much, I say just buy the F-15SE instead. The F-15 is already a proven platform; no need to re-invent the wheel. If we built an upgraded F-18, no reason we can't built an upgraded F-15.

When an ememy plane actually shoots one of these down, then we can talk about upgrading to a new fighter.


RE: F-15C
By nafhan on 4/15/2010 11:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
The F-15SE (Silent Eagle) isn't as stealthy as the F-35, and it's proposed cost is similar to that of the unit cost of the superior F-35. I think Boeing primarily put it together as an export platform.
Also, you ideally want to have your new planes in the air and your old ones retired before they start getting shot down.


RE: F-15C
By NullSubroutine on 4/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: F-15C
By yomamafor1 on 4/15/2010 11:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
F-35 not as agile as F-4? F-22 was designed primarily as a drone platform?

Can I please have some of what you're smoking?


RE: F-15C
By NullSubroutine on 4/15/2010 8:06:36 PM , Rating: 1
It is difficult to find but there are some testimonials of test pilots that say the turn radius of F-35's is worse than F-4's are. In response to criticism Northrup Grumman said basically "fighter mobility for the F-35 is irrelevant as the missiles do all the turning as the F-35 leaves the combat area".

In addition you apparently fail at reading comprehension as I never said F-22 was designed primarily as a drone platform. What I said was I think the only reason the F-22 was truly canceled is there is another "secret" military project, for example an F-22 redesigned as a pilot-less aircraft.

Is this fact? No, its speculation and based off past behavior of the Pentagon.


RE: F-15C
By gamerk2 on 4/15/2010 3:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
So? The funny thing, is NOTHING is stealthy below the 2GHz range. I'd love to see how these aircraft perform flying near the Russian early warning net...reliable ECM is far more imporant.

Secondly, its approx $50 million or so cheaper to build a new F-15E then a F-35, and about the same if you put the F-15SE into production.


RE: F-15C
By broknwavs on 4/18/2010 9:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate voted Tuesday to halt production of the Air Force's missile-eluding F-22 Raptor fighter jets in a high-stakes showdown over President Obama's efforts to shift defense spending to a new generation of smaller F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-21...

Get your facts straight. You obama lovers are delusional. How can this guy (obama) make any decision that is best for National Defense? Oh I forgot, a community organizer.

The Senate voted Tuesday to cut off production funding for the F-22 fighter, a come-from-behind win for Defense Secretary Robert Gates who has targeted the costly program as part of his effort to restructure the Pentagon budget.

The 58-40 roll call was more decisive than many had predicted and represented a dramatic shift from only last week when conventional wisdom held that $1.75 billion authorization would easily survive a challenge on the floor. The win gives new life to Gates’s budget initiatives and is a much needed boost for President Barack Obama at a time when public polls show declining support for his larger change agenda, including healthcare reform.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25210.ht...


RE: F-15C
By MadMan007 on 4/18/2010 11:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
tl;dr version: the total number of F-22s was set to 187 in 2007.

Robert Gates was carried over as SecDef by Obama - fact.

As of Jan 2009 (that would be before Obama's inauguration FYI) there were already plans to purchase only 187 Raptors. That's from the change in 2007 budget (pre-Obama) when the SecDef cut things down to the 187 by modifying the contract to extend the program timeframe but add 60 fighters rather than 56 (this is why you often see 183 fighters mentioned - the 2007 budget spread the cost over a few more years while adding 4 more fighters overall.) It takes a long time to vote on stuff, yes, that's why the vote was only recent and in the case of defense projects you get a lot of lobbying and wrangling for and from the congresspeople whose districts benefit from the programs.

Oh, another little FYI, apparently even Rumsfeld actually tried to cancel the program in 2002. :o What you can learn from some searching when you don't just go for the very latest news. If I was incorrect in what I said I'm sure I would have been jumped by someone before you but in fact I'd learned about the timing of the plans for the program cuts from some of the more right-wing posters here on DT.


RE: F-15C
By Belard on 4/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: F-15C
By corduroygt on 4/15/2010 10:22:01 AM , Rating: 3
I still think it would have been a better idea to add some ground attack capability and revise/eliminate the expensive stealth covering on the F-22. It'd still have a lower RCS than the F-15, and it'd be a helluva lot cheaper than either repairing the F-15's or designing the F-35. It could be exported as well since it would be watered down.


RE: F-15C
By Calin on 4/15/2010 2:07:50 PM , Rating: 3
USA always wanted and always had (in the relatively recent history) a premier air superiority plane. Starting with the P-51D (when ground attack was relegated to different planes, some of them good fighters on their own). Now, a big fighter plane comes with lots of advantages (like long range, lots of missiles and so on), but with some issues (increased weight, usually increased complexity and so on).
F-22 was designed to not be a target for all the anti-air devices that will appear in the next 20 years, and they might have exaggerated on stealth - or they might have not. Only the next 20 years will tell.


RE: F-15C
By gamerk2 on 4/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: F-15C
By Rankor on 4/15/2010 4:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
F-2A Brewster Buffalo
P-40 Curtiss Warhawk

P-39 was the Airacobra from Bell.


RE: F-15C
By Steele on 4/15/2010 8:28:11 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, those terrible pre-war US aircraft, such as the:
Lockheed P-38 Lightning (first flown 27 January, 1939)
Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (first flown 6 May, 1941)
Chance-Vought F4U Corsair (first flown 29 May, 1940)

Remind me again when the US entered the war? I believe it was later than those dates. Plus, your assesment of the P-51 as being "hopelessly underpowered" isn't totally accurate. It originally wasn't supercharged, so above 15,000 feet, it was sluggish, but it was an excellent low-altitude aircraft.


RE: F-15C
By Nfarce on 4/15/2010 9:54:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The US in its history has never gone to war with a major air power having a decent air superiority plane, either due to poor thought in designs, or in the case of the F105, idiotic engagement policies


Huh? The F-86 Sabre was our air superiority fighter during Korea (with a 10:1 kill ratio). Maybe you as a pseudo arm chair military aviation general thinks otherwise, but we don't just develop new aircraft overnight, and Korea came on pretty damn quick.

Second, the Thud (F-105) was originally designed as a low level supersonic nuclear strike bomber specifically for the USSR. It was used in other fashions until the F-4 came on board and was far from a failure in combat, especially ground attack and radar painting of SAM sites (Wild Weasels).

Third and finally, to say that the US has never gone to war with a major air power in place defeats the purpose of drawing down our military after major wars to begin with. Do you think in 1946, during the massive post-WWII drawdown that people thought just four years later another war would be waged? And to remind you of pre-WWII, the US wasn't even close to being prepared for a fight far away across the pond - on two fronts. In fact, many of the front line aircraft in the 1930s were still fabric coated and had two wings. The US had no need to project power overseas.

And so now that we are upgrading our near 40 year old fighters (F-14, 15, 16), you are making comments about our history in aviation? What the hell is your point?


RE: F-15C
By Calin on 4/16/2010 3:24:40 AM , Rating: 2
The P-39 was put to good use in the Soviet Union - and it was a competent plane at the low altitude air war was waged there. It was even armed with cannon. Yes, it was hopelessly underpowered at high altitude (like the Battle of Britain was fought), but for low altitude work was the equal of that time's german planes.


RE: F-15C
By cmdrdredd on 4/17/2010 6:06:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I still think it would have been a better idea to add some ground attack capability and revise/eliminate the expensive stealth covering on the F-22.


First off your ignorance is astounding on this subject. Second the addition of stealth characteristics was a requirement of the DOD when they initiated this project. Any aircraft to be submitted needed to have some stealth characteristics. It was a military requirement. Why? Simply because being seen means you can be shot at. If they don't see you until it's too late...you win. That was the goal with this aircraft. It was and is supposed to outclass everything for the next 10-20 years or so. That was another goal. Obama would have you believe that having the best technology in use with your military is a burden. Far from it. Of course I want to be better prepared, better trained, better armed, with the best technology, best weapons, and anything else that makes us the best. Why would you want other countries to be able to walk over you? Don't you know your history?

Last but not least, the F-22 does incorporate Air to Ground capability. It always did. Below is a rundown of the armament of the F-22 in current form.

Armament

* Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A2 Vulcan gatling gun in starboard wing root, 480 rounds

* Air to air loadout:
o 6× AIM-120 AMRAAM
o 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder

* Air to ground loadout:
o 2× AIM-120 AMRAAM and
o 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder for self-protection, and one of the following:
+ 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) JDAM or
+ 2× Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers (WCMDs) or
+ 8× 250 lb (110 kg) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs
* Hardpoints: 4× under-wing pylon stations can be fitted to carry 600 US gallon drop tanks or weapons, each with a capacity of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg)


RE: F-15C
By Reclaimer77 on 4/15/2010 10:55:09 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
nor is he a racists since he is HALF WHITE.


Except he loathes the white part and doesn't claim it. And after referring to his white grandmother who raised him as a "typical white person" , well, if he's not racist he's certainly not as politically correct as he demands everyone else be.

quote:
CAN'T FLY IN THE RAIN. Yes, RAIN will damage the plane.


Rain would soak through the coating and slowly over time rust certain panels beneath it. Not the instant "damage" that you claim. But guess what ? They replaced those panels with metal that CAN'T rust. So you are lying or are just not informed.

Lot's of planes in service had bigger problems than this and they weren't canned. It's called TRIAL AND ERROR. See when unforeseen problems come up we have these things called "engineers" and "technicians" that then come up with solutions to those problems.

I'm glad your mindset isn't in charge of the space program, after one shuttle accident we would have already put down the entire fleet.

quote:
This is the present, the F22 program started about 20+ years ago! Since then, the UAVs (Unmanned Ariel Vehicle) have advanced and are able to do things that can't be done by a pilot (it would kill them)... so in a few years, if China or Russia Gen-5 fighters came over here, our numerous UAVs would blow them out of the sky. For every F22, about 100 UAV fighters could be built.


Are you retarded? I haven't see ANY UAV that can do high speed engagements with fighter planes. Or fill any number of roles that would be needed to combat an enemy air force. Do they have an AWAC's UAV too that I didn't hear about ??

quote:
PS: Another latest fox/GOP nonsense... "Taxpayers to pay for bank bailouts" - er, no. The plan is that the BANKS will be forced into paying for their own bailouts, kind of like an insurance. Since Wallstreet is STILL playing games with OUR money and lives... what does it matter if they're too big to fail and have the country borrow and bail them out, again?


Ummm the TARP were loans, not bailouts. And they have already been paid back with HUGE interest. The United States Government has made a massive profit from the TARP actually.

quote:
for someone like YOU who may talk about "waste of money" - that is what the F22 was, unfortunately. And the MIC (Military-industrial complex) should stop wasting our money


The F22 exceeds and beats the F35 in any objective comparison. Frankly the F35 is a flying pig in comparison. So how it it a waste of money when it's here, ready to go, and the F35 still isn't ???


RE: F-15C
By yomamafor1 on 4/15/2010 11:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
Again, someone doesn't know anything trying to act like he's all-knowing.

Also,

quote:
The F22 exceeds and beats the F35 in any objective comparison. Frankly the F35 is a flying pig in comparison. So how it it a waste of money when it's here, ready to go, and the F35 still isn't ???


Including the cost, which is nearly 2x the cost of a F-35, and 6x the cost of F-15, the plane they're planned to replace.


RE: F-15C
By Calin on 4/15/2010 2:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, including the cost. However, in air superiority roles, one F-22 is better than two F-35 (is faster, stealthier, carries more missiles both internal and external, and I think is even more maneuverable). The F-35 already has equal opponents (Russian PAK-FA, who can outrun and out-turn small air-to-air missiles), but F-22 is still in a class of its own.


RE: F-15C
By Reclaimer77 on 4/15/2010 2:47:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, including the cost. However, in air superiority roles, one F-22 is better than two F-35 (is faster, stealthier, carries more missiles both internal and external, and I think is even more maneuverable). The F-35 already has equal opponents (Russian PAK-FA, who can outrun and out-turn small air-to-air missiles), but F-22 is still in a class of its own.


Bingo !

You can't put a cost on Superiority folks. Especially when a human being is in the seat who we've invested millions in training and educating, not to mention his value as a person to his family etc etc.


RE: F-15C
By yomamafor1 on 4/15/2010 3:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
Except that F-22 was designed to be air superiority fighter, while F-35 was designed to be multi-role. They each had vastly different design perimeters.


RE: F-15C
By FITCamaro on 4/15/2010 10:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
Are you making the case that the F22 can carry more ordinance than the F35? Because that is blantantly false. The F22 has no external weapons mounting points. That's why it is so stealthy.


RE: F-15C
By Amiga500 on 4/16/2010 5:04:34 AM , Rating: 2
That is incorrect.

The F-22 can have 2 pylons on each wing. The inner pylons are 'wetted' and can take additional fuel tanks.

All up, an F-22 could carry as many as 16 AAMs, 2 AIM-9X (internal), 6 AIM-120 (internal) & 8 external missiles on the pylons.


RE: F-15C
By AssBall on 4/16/2010 10:00:46 AM , Rating: 2
And a c130 can carry 300 AAMS....

you guys are arguing about specifics and I am enjoying your posts, but it seems like everyone is missing the point. Yes the F22 is a more maneuverable plane, but who cares? This is the real world, not f-cking Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer magically dodging a mach4 radar guided missle and shooting down 30 mig-28s.

The F-35 is a cheaper, more versatile aircraft SPECIFICALLY designed for modern AFs, Navies, & GROUND support.

The F-22 is a marvelous piece of engineering, but rather useless to us currently. That was our motivation for cutting production. China, India, and Russia are going to be 20 years behind developing anything that holds a candle to the F-22. You can discuss their propaganda oriented prototypes all you want, but we already have a TESTED AND COMPLETED FLEET of the very best aircraft ever produced.

You know what air superiority is now? ITS SHOOTING YOUR MISSLE FIRST, and having more airplanes in the air FIRST. It's much more important and practical to have good intel (AWAC, sattellite, drone) than some kind of hollywood magical missle dodging 200 million dollar plane. I guess what I am saying is that air superiority is a completely different ball game than it was in 1960


RE: F-15C
By Amiga500 on 4/16/2010 12:11:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I guess what I am saying is that air superiority is a completely different ball game than it was in 1960


Oofffff. That statement is the exact opposite of reality.

If there is a next big war (within next 20 years) - turn on your radar = you die.

If there is a next big war (within next 30 years) - AAMs are redundant, defensive DEWs will fry their seeker heads, it will be back to 1950s ACM!

If there is a next big war (within next 40 years) - DEWs dominate the field, the bigger, the better.


RE: F-15C
By AssBall on 4/16/2010 12:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
How is it "the opposite of reality"? You yourself go on to describe exactly why it is a reality, Amiga. I'm a little confused.

As you partially explained, the communications, intelligence, and weapon systems we can design and deploy today are indescribably superior to what we had in the Korean war, and the current global climate has completely modified both national alliances and rules of engagement. Don't forget nuclear weapon proliferation either. I don't see Iran or NK getting a realistically dangerous EW into orbit in the next 20 years, let alone 30. And if they did, the US and most of Europe will respond easily and quickly with 10 devices that actually do work. War in general today is not fought the same as it was 50 years ago, or even remotely close. That is a reality. /shrug


RE: F-15C
By Amiga500 on 4/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: F-15C
By Lakku on 4/16/2010 11:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
It should be able to cary, or in the future be able to carry, 4 AIM-9X internally but can carry only 2 AIM-9Ms internally since they have much larger fins.


RE: F-15C
By Reclaimer77 on 4/15/2010 2:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, someone doesn't know anything trying to act like he's all-knowing.


And you have clearly refuted my "all knowingness" with facts and links to....

Oh wait, yeah, you didn't.


RE: F-15C
By yomamafor1 on 4/15/2010 3:31:14 PM , Rating: 3
You're doing great!

Keep trolling.


RE: F-15C
By Reclaimer77 on 4/15/2010 4:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not trolling sir. I am very passionate about national defense and these issues.


RE: F-15C
By kerpwnt on 4/15/2010 12:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except he loathes the white part...

One bold claim. This is going to be juicy.
quote:
...referring to his white grandmother who raised him as a "typical white person"...

There's some evidence! Maybe it doesn't prove intent, or how he feels about himself. Maybe it doesn't prove anything, but it resembles something of substance.
quote:
he's certainly not as politically correct as he demands everyone else be.

There's the other slice of gratuitous assumption. Mmmm-mmm, now that is one zesty quote sandwich!

I can understand where people come from when they call Obama a progressive-socialist-Marxist-communist-equestrian- radical-Kenyan-Muslim freedom hating pinko-vegetarian-beatnik-dictator who wants to take away all of my guns and money, but I just don't think I can get behind the racist claim yet. Glenn Beck needs to revisit racism a few more times before I'll really buy it.


RE: F-15C
By PitViper007 on 4/15/2010 1:49:33 PM , Rating: 5
Wait a minute....You mean he's a VEGETARIAN?!?!?


RE: F-15C
By Reclaimer77 on 4/15/2010 3:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
Ok but my point is can you imagine, just IMAGINE, if Rush Limbaugh or someone else called Obama "a typical black guy" ??

We wouldn't be hearing cries of "racist!!", we would hear people calling for his head on a pike.

quote:
but I just don't think I can get behind the racist claim yet.


Perhaps racist isn't the right term. But he's clearly HIGHLY motivated by race in his thinking and policies. It's in his books, his speeches, and his remarks.

And he uses reverse racism in the most despicable manner. We saw this in the campaign to be president. Anyone who has a problem with his policies is labeled a racist as a means to shut them up. It's VERY unbecoming. It's dirty low down wrong.

In fact, on the whole, I have never seen an Administration in my life more unable to take criticism. Anyone, on any issue, that has a problem with the things we're doing is outright attacked and smeared by either the President or a cabinet member in the most mean spirited manner. Now that I think about it, I think Obama in his short year plus has more facetime behind a TV camera than ANY President ever has. And it's usually used to belittle, attack, or discredit anyone telling the truth about the way the US is headed.


RE: F-15C
By Belard on 4/15/2010 5:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
Criticism? You mean like darth-cheney when he'd tell people "f*ck you!" and of course the constant laws he and his puppet (bush) broke over the past 8 years?

Whatever.

Get a clue lifer-deather-becker-fixnews anti-american facist racist lover of social support for the rich tea-bagger.

Seriously, its people like YOU who constantly bring up race. hint hint, all you tea-baggers are pissed off white people who think Palin has an IQ over 2 digits.

Blame the black guy who was handed over a totally fracked-up country. Blame the black guy for now stopping the job-loss in this country like turning a faucet. Unlike a year+ ago, jobs are slowly coming back.

quote:
I think Obama in his short year plus has more facetime behind a TV camera than ANY President ever has.

yeah, THINK about it... Bush was best never talking to the public because he's a TOTAL FU**ing moron. Every time he opened his mouth, he's say something stupid or completely wrong. Idiot couldn't get the Texan saying "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"... because he's an IDIOT. And only IDIOTS will follow another idiot... and the only thing an idiot hates more than smart people is black people. So double whammy on you, eh?

Bush fool me speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qDuG0ZYD5I

Ever thought that perhaps the non news-channel, publicly right-wing neo-con foxnews maybe lying to you?


RE: F-15C
By TerranMagistrate on 4/15/2010 6:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Blame the black guy for now stopping the job-loss in this country like turning a faucet. Unlike a year+ ago, jobs are slowly coming back.


I hope you're not alluding to the 160,000 or so jobs added in March, the majority of which had much to do with the 2010 Census, because then you'd be spewing more bullshit.

With jobless claims constantly rising each week, it's not much of an economic recovery at all regardless of what the mainstream media would have you believe. Job creation doesn't seem to be Obama's top priority either, one of his many mistakes.

Of course accord to you, he probably can do no wrong.


RE: F-15C
By Belard on 4/17/2010 11:29:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I hope you're not alluding to the 160,000 or so jobs added in March, the majority of which had much to do with the 2010 Census, because then you'd be spewing more bullshit.


Whats with the swearing? And no... not talking about the census jobs. The peak of Americans that were losing jobs (per month_ was just after the 2008 election. So while YES, we almost have 10% jobless - the trend has reversed.

So what? You or anything the GOP have an idea to instantly overnight give 8~9% of the people job? eh, huh? No.

Obamas mistake is trying to do anything with the GOP... party of NO... even to their own ideas. So no, hes not perfect... no somebody who is?


RE: F-15C
By Reclaimer77 on 4/15/2010 6:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Get a clue lifer-deather-becker-fixnews anti-american facist racist lover of social support for the rich tea-bagger.


AHAHAAHAHAHA !!!

You're cute when you're insanely angry, ya know ?


RE: F-15C
By Nfarce on 4/15/2010 7:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
Have you noticed how the mindless, mouth breathing Obamabots like belard are becoming more vicious, more vile, and more hateful? One would think these moonbatic troglodytes of the modern liberal regressive movebackwards.com left would be happy with their Dear Leaders running the show full steam ahead (to hell).

But no. Tea Party, FoxNews, Palin, blah blah blah ad nauseam and then mindlessly telling us all we're racists. How juvenile can you get, let alone whoring out and mindlessly using the phrase "racism" as a gutter ball argument version of crying wolf. Last I checked, the head of the GOP was BLACK .

Well, you can't blame them really. The DNC main stream Obamamedia sure won't do any negative reporting on the one way express train to economic ruin, world instability, and America-killing freedoms and liberties The Teleprompter In Chief and his fascist goons in congress are taking us all down. Dunno about you, but I'm ready to jump off in 2010 and definitely 2012.


RE: F-15C
By Belard on 4/17/2010 11:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obamamedia sure won't do any negative reporting on the one way express train to economic ruin, world instability, and America-killing freedoms and liberties The Teleprompter In Chief and his fascist goons in congress are taking us all down.


LOL... actually, on actual NEWS channels - there are neg actual reporting on Obama. I'm not completely happy with him, but he does have a brain. 8 years of stupid has done enough...

But stop watching FAKeNews and you'd know that the MOST govt. spending ever has been under GWBush... I'm a Texan and he's a turd with half of the state. Yep, Obama actually got around 45% of the Texas vote and he didn't campaign down here.

What freedoms are you talking about? GWBUsh: "There ought to be limits to freedom" uh... wow. Yes, we do actually have more transparency under Obama, but it should be more. The laws that bush changed and things he did against the Constitution and of course.

Its easy show that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfield, Rice and Powell are traitors to the USA. And you know how I count them...?

4390

4390 dead Americans over a fake war.

quote:
Teleprompter In Chief

LOL! Do you know how stupid you and everyone else is when they bring that up? Its almost as bad as saying "Obama - he breathes in Oxygen, what a loser!"

Hey Einstein... everyone uses a teleprompter! Reading of speeches, especially those that are 20, 30, 40mins. You're going to be doing some reading. What do YOU THINK a PODIUM is used for? Yes, to hold papers for speeches. DUH. Everyone on TV uses a teleprompter, including all the farces on foxnews.

Seriously... thats your argument? We have far more problems with this country.

quote:
"racism" as a gutter ball argument version of crying wolf. Last I checked, the head of the GOP was BLACK .

Who carees who black... head of the GOP is a joke... yeah, you love him? He's what we call "TOKEN". Look it up, its funny. And I'm not talking about the GOP, I'm talking about the tea-baggers.

About 2010/2012... since health Care passed, isn't the pill-popping limbaugh supposed to move to Costa-Rica, where they have national health care?


RE: F-15C
By Belard on 4/18/2010 7:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, my mistake... a correction

Steele isn't the head of the GOP, sorry about that. He's head of the RNC.


RE: F-15C
By YashBudini on 4/21/2010 9:16:02 PM , Rating: 1
Same shit.


RE: F-15C
By AssBall on 4/16/2010 10:09:37 AM , Rating: 1
Was this post suppost to be meaningful or coherent?

I guess I must be an anti american facist deather(wtf?) Becker racist rich person loving tea bagger with 2 Intelligent Quotients, because I really don't get the point of anything this asshole said.


RE: F-15C
By ToadkillerDog on 4/16/2010 4:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
Belard - seiously take a chill pill, dude. I'm liberal but am seriously embarrassed when people like you who might share my political beliefs spout such hatred and insults to the opposition. I think all debate coaches would tell you that when you resort to insults like you have been doing you lose all hope of influencing the opposition. The opposition usually includes many moderates who may side with you, otherwise. Something to think about.


RE: F-15C
By Belard on 4/17/2010 11:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah sorry...

Actually I'm not pissed or anything. Watch a bit of foxnews and its easy to see how people are scared and acting like nut-jobs. Foxnews even have daily memos on what to say... they are not a news company, just an advertising arm for neo-cons.

And its plain sick.

Debates are fine... but when going up against lies that are easy to spot as lies and the sheep cannot see... its plain sad. You got these nut-jobs screaming "We want our country back!!" Where were they with recording spending by bush? Obama has lowered our taxes... yep, did my taxes and yes I'm getting more back than last year.

Yeah, I've been threatened IRL because I laughed at the stupidity of something palin did... gee, in America, we HAVE the right our opinions of politicians. Or supposed to anyways.

My "insult rant" was a point, all those "titles" are the same group. They have nothing else.

I forgot who said the phrase. But people like Tea-baggers are like children. Telling them that Santa Clause isn't real hurts. So they scream America this & that, #1, nothing wrong with the USA - then turn around and scream "We want our country back?!". It hasn't gone anywhere.

And besides.... all your white guys killed us Indians for America. :)


RE: F-15C
By Belard on 4/19/2010 11:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
Now these guys (Limbag) are blaming the Volcano in Iceland on Obama.

Get a clue guys.


RE: F-15C
By thurston on 4/16/2010 9:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
You are weird, your level of hate is not normal.


RE: F-15C
By YashBudini on 4/21/2010 9:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe not, but it is average for a pub.


RE: F-15C
By MrBungle123 on 4/15/2010 11:24:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
we don't have a mulsim president, nor is he a racists since he is HALF WHITE


explain this then...

Obama on March 20 2008:
quote:
"But she [Obama's Grandmother] is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know there's a reaction that's been been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society."


People that are not racist don't bring up race at all... why does Obama even bring it up? He called his own grandmoter a "typical white person" what the hell does that mean?!

quote:
Another latest fox/GOP nonsense... Since Wallstreet is STILL playing games with OUR money and lives...


I'm going to tell you a little secret that you and the rest of the delusional retards that get all their infomation from the leftist media havent yet figured out...

Everyone with a 401k, money in a mutual fund, a stock portfolio, or that works for a publicly traded company is in some way part of "Wallstreet". (Thats tens of millions of people if you couldn't figure that out on your own either) Big companies are not evil! Without them you would have no way to log onto dailytech or spew your drivel all over the internet! They produce the products and support the wages that make modern life possible. Small businesses do not have the resources to churn out hundreds of thousands of copies of incredibly complicated precisely engineered [fill in blank with virtually anything you find in a store] at the speed, quality, and prices that large coprorations can!


RE: F-15C
By Belard on 4/15/2010 5:17:24 PM , Rating: 3
Er... you brought up the race, not me or anyone else. He's our president, not a black president or a white president.

quote:
I'm going to tell you a little secret that you and the rest of the delusional retards that get all their infomation from the leftist media havent yet figured out


How do you? If all your "information" is right-wing neo-con, then how can you make any informed thoughts with you have so much edited and censored info? Even beck himself admits he's an entertainer, nothing else... he gets paid millions to make the moronic fringe go paranoid and start killing people.

quote:
Big companies are not evil! Without them you would have no way to log onto dailytech or spew your drivel all over the internet! They produce the products and support the wages that make modern life possible.


Whose saying big companies are evil? There are great companies and there are evil companies... whatever. lets see, EXXON paid a butt-load of taxes to every country in the world, since they are making HUGE profits. But in the USA, they paid $0. Uh... huh?

The Supreme Court just changed the law that allows big companies to have unlimited budgets for politicians. This is already bad enough with the GOP being funded by the Health Care Insurance companies to vote no... meaning we, the people have even less voice.

All over the Internet, you tea-baggers will post politics on subjects that have nothing to do with politics. Hopefully it'll blow-up in all your faces (sooner, than later preferred) - but overall, it would be GREAT if the politicians would WORK for the USA and not who pays them and stop lying to the people. Yeah, the Health Care bill is half republican - usually the bad parts that people are pissed off about, they were put in to get some republican votes. grrrrr... so why bother? Bush & team didn't.

Hopefully someday the USA will grow up or we'll turn into a mess not-much like Islamic countries in which DEMS and REPs are shooting and bombing each other. Oh yeah, the REPs are already doing that.


RE: F-15C
By thurston on 4/17/2010 12:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hopefully it'll blow-up in all your faces (sooner, than later preferred)


That's why I'm going to vote for Sarah Palin, just go ahead and get it over with so we can start fresh.


RE: F-15C
By Belard on 4/18/2010 7:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
You speak volumes.

She's still a complete moron, no matter how much lipstick you put on her. She couldn't even handle the job of being a governor of Alaska for a full term...

She's got legal and moral issues.

I'll give her credit for milking people dumber than her for money.


RE: F-15C
By cmdrdredd on 4/17/2010 5:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Er... you brought up the race, not me or anyone else. He's our president, not a black president or a white president.


He might be your president... I don't respect him, don't like him, would never vote for him even if I was paid to do so, and I certainly do think he is the worst thing ever to happen to this country.


RE: F-15C
By Belard on 4/18/2010 7:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
So the 4390 dead Americans, 25,000+ maimed (missing legs, arms, etc) over fake intel is a good thing? how do YOU figure that?

The amount of debt that GWBush didn't hurt us?

Gee, what country do you live in?

And he was a piss-poor governor too. But at least he's not a real Texan.


RE: F-15C
By YashBudini on 4/21/2010 9:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
Texans haven't learned a thing, look at the idiot they have for a govenor now. You just can't fix stupid, which is why you're wasting your breath.


RE: F-15C
By YashBudini on 4/21/2010 9:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
"Big companies are not evil!"

Oh no, Goldman Sachs is the salvation of the human race.

Gag, cough, spit.


RE: F-15C
By Lakku on 4/16/2010 11:48:50 PM , Rating: 3
I am tired of this blatent lie. Rain DOES NOT DAMAGE THE F-22! The Washington Post first claimed this crap and also ran a number of other mis-leading facts, probably 'leaked' to influence those who had the power to cancel the program. The F-22 DOES NOT require 30 man hours of maint. per hour of flight time, also stated by the Post. At the end of 2009, the F-22 was around 10 to 11 hours per flight hour, below the program goal of 12. The only thing they got correct was the 44k per flight hour to operate, about 14k more than an F-15. All of these facts and figures are from the Air Force and Lockheed Martin. I am so sick of people reading on the internet and then it spreads, becoming some kind of fact. It is simply not true at this time, though I cannot comment on early aircraft in the 90's and early 2000's as data is limited.


RE: F-15C
By zaki on 4/15/2010 10:28:42 AM , Rating: 4
There are muslim soldiers in the US, UN/NATO armies that fight to protect people like yourself. I hope you never get the pleasure of meeting any of them, as you clearly do not deserve them fighting for you.


RE: F-15C
By TerranMagistrate on 4/15/2010 4:35:07 PM , Rating: 1
True that.

Let us hope that these aforementioned Muslims don't start practicing their religion of Islam too much like how Nidal Malik Hasan did at Fort Hood.


RE: F-15C
By qdemn7 on 4/15/2010 1:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
Shut your racist pie hole, you bigot.


RE: F-15C
By YashBudini on 4/21/2010 9:03:27 PM , Rating: 1
" president muslim "

Yeah president Halliburton really put u son the right path.

Have some more green Cool-Aid?


and they cut f22's...
By inperfectdarkness on 4/15/2010 8:47:21 AM , Rating: 5
...because they said the f-35 would be cheaper. roflmfao.

on another note, the a-10 will never be replaced by the f-35. perhaps by an advanced version of a reaper; but never by a fighter-jet.




RE: and they cut f22's...
By Calin on 4/15/2010 9:00:05 AM , Rating: 2
There will be some kind of UAV in the place of the A-10 - able to fly from unprepared airstrips, long loiter time, slow flying, and cheap (compared to the F-35). The A-10 was built specifically because fighter jets (and fighter-bombers) weren't good enough for that job.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/15/2010 11:13:21 AM , Rating: 3
No moron. The A-10 was built as a counter to enemy tanks and other vehicles and ground forces. You show me a UAV that can fire sausage sized shells from a massive cannon and stay in the air from the recoil. Or that can carry enough ordinance engage multiple targets.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By nafhan on 4/15/2010 11:27:44 AM , Rating: 2
The massive cannon isn't the only thing that can bust tanks. A few Reaper's carrying hellfire missiles would do a pretty good job softening up armored ground vehicles.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By aegisofrime on 4/15/2010 11:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention that you can deploy a lot more of them since they are most probably cheaper than an A-10, and you have no fear of losing pilots.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By borowki2 on 4/15/2010 5:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think the Reaper is like 10 million a pop. Not terribly cheap.

I remember reading somewhere that the US military is evaluating the Brazilian the Super Tucano for COIN operations. These things are relatively cheap. Should the circumstance arise, they can probably be put into close ground support role.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/15/2010 11:45:46 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't some raghead shoot down a UAV with an AK-47 ?? Sorry but these are NOT battlefield units capable of filling the role of an A-10. End of discussion.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By GaryJohnson on 4/15/2010 12:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
UAVs don't have to be light weight and lightly armored.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By Calin on 4/15/2010 2:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
I've shot AK-47 assault rifles - and stationary targets at 100 meters are decently easy to hit.
However, moving targets at hundreds of meters altitude, moving 200 km/h - I think that was a lucky shot, just like a shot that would hit the detonator on the ordnance carried by the A-10.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By gamerk2 on 4/15/2010 3:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
UAV's don't have significant payload, A10's do.

Hell, the design REQUIREMENTS of the A10 mandated you can fly one with half a wing and one tail blown off; I don't think pilot saftey is too big a concern either.

The A10 is the best option for low altitude attacks. UAV's simply can not be armored enough to be useful in that role, let alone carring enough ordinance to make a differnce against a large grouping of enemies.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By bigdawg1988 on 4/15/2010 11:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure I understand what you're writing. If you took the pilot out of an A-10 and remotely piloted it, wouldn't it be a UAV? I don't know how much the remote control equipment weighs, but it would probably weigh less than a pilot, plus you wouldn't have to worry about an ejection seat, enviromental controls, or a wind screen. Wouldn't have to have such a large titanium bath tub either. So a remotely piloted vehicle should be lighter. Current UAVs certainly cannot beat an A10, but we could design UAVs capable of the role. I think the only problem is what happens if we face an enemy with jamming capabilities? A10 wins out in that scenario.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By Calin on 4/16/2010 3:55:43 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, the F-35 has similar payload to the A-10 if flying with external stores. And the MQ1C can carry 4 Hellfire missiles


RE: and they cut f22's...
By AssBall on 4/15/2010 9:42:37 AM , Rating: 2
I kind of figured the Apache was a pretty good a-10 replacement. There isn't a hell of alot a Warthog can do better, except of course take alot more incoming fire. It's like a damned flying tank.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By gamerk2 on 4/15/2010 10:12:40 AM , Rating: 3
Well, when close to the ground, I think being able to survive enemy fire would be a good trait to have...

Fact is, the Air Force didn't want the A-10, until it got shoved down their throat. I think thats proof enough that all "Attack" aircraft be given to the Army, so the AF can focus strictly on multirole/Air Superiority roles.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By Chernobyl68 on 4/15/2010 2:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
The apache doesn't have nearly the survivability or payload that the A-10 does. It does have some interesting attack capabilities that no fixed wing ever will (like the hide behind the hill trick) but comparing a helicopter to a plane is apples to oranges, really.

Any I agree, the F-35 will never replace the A-10. You want to replace the A-10, you'd have to design a NEW A-10.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By JediJeb on 4/15/2010 3:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. And I never laughed and cried so hard as when just prior to the Gulf War someone was trying to kill off the A-10 and replace it with the F-16 of all things! That's not even comparing apples to oranges that's comparing apples to watermelon. Someone in the defense department actually thought the F-16 would be good at close air support, tank busting, ect like the A-10? How would an F-16 handle at less than 200knots and about 100m altitude?

Would the F-35 be able to fly slow at low altitude like the A-10 and still have the capabilities it has? Does it have the "armored bathtub" cockpit of the A-10 for pilot protection? Can it still fly with half shredded wings and get a pilot home safely? I can't imagine someone thinking one plane could serve so many roles as they want the F-35 to do. Jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By inperfectdarkness on 4/16/2010 8:57:32 AM , Rating: 2
11 hard points, 16,000lbs bomb capacity, and an airframe designed around armament first and foremost says you're wrong. (not to mention the helo vs. fixed wing debate).

you're not going to be dropping jdam's & mavericks from an apache. so while both do have 30mm, it's more than an apples to oranges comparison. more like an apple to watermellon comparison.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By AssBall on 4/16/2010 10:18:29 AM , Rating: 2
Conceded!
Apaches don't carry bunker busters or some of the other cool armaments like napalm/phosphorus/scatter either.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By phantom505 on 4/16/2010 7:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
The simple "shit your pants" effect of the A-10 makes it worth keeping them.

Nothing says "God give me a quick death" more than A-10's and B-52's. Hence why B-52's will be flying in the AF on their 100th aniversery.


RE: and they cut f22's...
By JediJeb on 4/16/2010 3:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I know this feeling too well. I was mowing a field at my dad's once when an A-10 came flying over me from behind. I could not hear it over the noise from the tractor and it was maybe 100-200m high when it flew over. I could hear the engines about the same time I saw the belly passing over me, I about jumped off the tractor lol. I can imagine the effect it would have if you were an enemy combatant and knew it was probably gunning for you.


By knutjb on 4/15/2010 9:37:09 AM , Rating: 5
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Where this say anything about helping people? It doesn't because that is the State's job NOT the Federal Government. The Military IS a mandatory requirement of the Federal Government.

If the Feds stop trying to micro-manage the States we will all be better off.

Try reading it it's a whole lot easier to read than the last couple of bills out of DC.


By gamerk2 on 4/15/2010 10:24:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Notice wealfare and defense are given the same priority in the Constitution.

quote:
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


Funny...I dont see any mention of an Airforce or Marine corps...could they be...Unconstitutional? The Constitution doesn't mention them, and as strict constructionists love to point out, you can't anything the constitution doesn't explicitly tell you to do...

So please, read the whole thing. Using your silly argument, you could easily argue that every land purchase in US history is illegial, there are only 13 states, and two branches of the military are unconstitutional. Strict Constructionism died when Jefferson decided to purchase the Lousiania territory from the French.


By gamerk2 on 4/15/2010 10:27:31 AM , Rating: 2
Also interesting:
From wikipedia:

quote:
Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has not often defined "general welfare," leaving the political question to Congress. In United States v. Butler (1936), the Court for the first time construed the clause. The dispute centered on a tax collected from processors of agricultural products such as meat; the funds raised by the tax were not paid into the general funds of the treasury, but were rather specially earmarked for farmers. The Court struck down the tax, ruling that the general welfare language in the Taxing and Spending Clause related only to "matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare". Congress continues to make expansive use of the Taxing and Spending Clause; for instance, the social security program is authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause.


Theres your legal reasoning for a public healthcare system. [which I again note the bill passed by Congress does NOT include]


By BailoutBenny on 4/16/2010 6:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
At the time the Constitution was written, common defense and general welfare were actually complimentary ideas. The taxes and imposts were designed to provide equipment for citizen militias in the case of war and invasion. Thus a common defense would ensure the general welfare of the nation.

Of course, over time, this has been construed to mean anything politicians and sympathetic judges want it to mean, along with the necessary and proper clause, and the Supreme Court has been guilty of many unconstitutional rulings over the life of the court. Just take a look at the telecom immunity bills. They are blatently unconstitutional, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed", yet those bills still stand today as law, despite being ex post facto laws.

Ambiguous clauses like this were purposely written into the Constitution by Hamilton and Madison because they were highly sympathetic to the British mercantilist system which was centralized, subsidized, and protectionist. After writing it, they encouraged and propogated the idea of the Constitution being a living document to be interpreted instead of being a static set of unchanging laws (besides the amendment process, which is the only way to truly change the meaning and wording of the Constitution). It was an extremely subtle bait and switch. The Constitution was a direct usurpation of power by the centralists (federalists), who hated the Articles of Confederation exactly because it did a wonderful job of decentralizing the government. If put to vote today, I would agree to go back to the Articles in a heartbeat.


By Raiken3712 on 4/15/2010 1:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
There isn't any mention of the Airforce because they didn't even freakin have airplanes when it was written, but saying its not constitutional because of that is just plain silly.

Your trying to make a point that strict constructionism isn't valid because of this is just plain stupid though. You just quoted something that makes it fit with the constitution.

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You know that part about Common Defense it sorta fits in with creating the Air Force doesn't it. Considering they didn't even have planes back than its a logical extension of the Military which is part of the common defense and therefore fits in with the constitution just fine.

The Marines also are just an extension of the common defense. What you said would be the same as saying if I put sprinkles on my Ice Cream its not Ice Cream any more because they didn't used to have them. There probably are tons better analogies but whatever.


By gamerk2 on 4/15/2010 3:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
And you prove my point: You have to go beyond what is directly written in the Constitution to justify an independent Airforce. At the end of teh day, you can't argue "Common Defense", as an airforce is not a requirement for national defense. You can NOT argue "Well, the founding fathers didn't think of that" while also arguing the Constitution must be followed to the letter. Same argument goes for the Marines. Even then, you STILL need to invoke the "Necessary and Proper" clause to pass a law implementing the "Common Defense" clause, farther showing teh follow of strict constructionism (As the clauses very nature shows the impossiblity of strict constructionism).

Secondly, and more importantly: The Constitution also lists what Congress may NOT do. Here's the conundrum: A strict constructionist, by definition, would have to agree that Congress' powers are therefor limited by what the Constitution says Congress may not do. So in short, Congress is limited only by what the Constituion says they may NOT do.

Finally: you can't justify the Lousiania Purchase, or any other land grab, while being a strict constructionist. You can't argue "Common defense" in this case, at least without invoking the "Necessary and Proper" clause, which itself proves Congress is limited only by what is explicity stated they may NOT do.

Strict construcionsim is as silly a concept as "States rights" [which the 10th ammendment doesn't give; its a truism]


By gamerk2 on 4/15/2010 3:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
I do note you did better then most people; this is the twelth time I've used that argument, and you're the first to think to use the "Common Defense" clause.

The problem is funding; in this case, the constitution clearly states that funding is limited to a Army and Navy. No matter how you look at it, a strict contructionist HAS to argue that taxation for any other purpose except those listed in the Constitution are no legal, and therefor, funding for the Air Force and Marines are unconstitutional. Now, if the Marines were part of the Navy, and the Air Force merged back into the Army, that would be perfectly legal. But as seperate branches, under a strict view of the Constitution, both are blatently illegial.


By Raiken3712 on 4/15/2010 6:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
The air force is a different branch of the military (a synonym for army). Navy at the time was separated from army only because ships existed before the constitution, but planes did not. There was a time not that long ago that the air force was part of the army. It's arguable that in the vernacular of the founders, it's still part of the "army." The fact there is a delineation in modern days is no different than there being a difference between Army Rangers and the rest of the army. It's still, part of the "army"

The same argument can be made for organizations like the CIA, which is also interested in defence (which I would agree with, though others might not)

Furthermore, a strict constructionist need not believe that the constitution is inflexible. They need only attempt to interpret it in keeping with what they believe of the principles of the founders. Your view is that because we can't word-for-word literally take it to allow things like the air force that we shouldn't obey it at all, and that's frankly ridiculous.

You take it that far because you want to believe that it's ok for the government to take on actions that it clearly should not if interpreted in accordance with the original principles this government was founded upon. Certainly there are areas where even strict constructionists disagree, because there are different ideas about what those principles mean today.

It is absolutely clear to me that Washington, Jefferson, and Madison would find the modern day extensions of federal power appalling and I think even you would think that. The idea that the government can use "interstate commerce" clause, which was primarily in the constitution to prevent protectionist policies used against other states in the union, as a way to manage everything that can be construed to affect commerce in anyway is ridiculous. I know they wouldn't support the Supreme Court decisions in the 30s which advised home grown wheat for private consumption was an infringement of "interstate commerce" rules that were clearly already an overreach by trying to implement a partially socialist command economy.

As for the Louisiana Purchase, I believe it does fall under the allowance of the General Welfare, because it doesn't benefit only a single, local group but everyone by allowing the nation to use the additional resources, land, etc. for everyone. I'll admit the Louisiana Purchase is at least arguable, since one could argue it didn't benefit the nation as a whole. At the same time, it was nowhere near the overreach of modern day federal activities since the Louisiana Territory was given the same separation of power as the original states when it was split up into states.

The purchase of the Louisiana Territory in no way infringed upon the personal liberties of Americans, which was the fundamental purpose of having a limited federal government. This is a huge difference from being forced to buy health care or told not to produce wheat so your family can eat, or not to use marijuana you grow personally to eliminate pain, etc.


By BailoutBenny on 4/16/2010 6:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
The Louisiana Purchase was completely unconstitutional. Jefferson even expressed his belief that it was. The Constitution does not delegate the power to purchase land to any branch of government, therefore for the executive to do so was a huge violation of the Constitution. If the power is not granted to the federal government, and not prohibited to the states, it remains with the states and with the people.


By JediJeb on 4/16/2010 10:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States ; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


My problem here is that it states welfare of the United States, not individuals who want to gather money from the government without contributing back to the government. This it to promote the welfare of the population as a whole, hence the word general. Since the term "general welfare" is used then it could be argued that any government program that benefits certain individuals while excluding others could be unconstitutional. That would make WIC, Medicare, Social Security, HUD and many many other programs unconstitutional since only some citizens can benefit from them and not all citizens.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe many of these programs are needed and have a valid reason to exist, but they are also things that individuals, social organizations and churches, and local and state governments used to provide. These things did not exist before the Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt as parts of the Federal Government. They were also only possible then because the Federal Government is allowed to operate in a deficit mode for emergency reasons. Problem is it seems we have been in an emergency ever since.

The Founding Fathers of our country did not want us to follow the ideals and structure of European government, that is one of the reasons we fought a war for independence. It is the reason we have a three part government also, which at the time was different from other governments. It was to prevent one small group from having overwhelming power that could lead to tyranny or control over the freedoms of individual citizens.

Also to address the lack of the Air Force and Marines being specifically listed in the constitution, that come from a failure of our congress to do its job properly. They should have proposed an amendment that would have only taken a couple lines to state that the Federal Government was also responsible for funding those branches, when they decided to split them from the Army and Navy respectively. This is simply an oversight on the part of the congress, but also shows how much we take the constitution for granted these days. Also why shouldn't there be an amendment to force current congresses to structure new bills after the constitution in that they be written in the same simple and concise way? Grade schoolers can read and understand the constitution, yet it is difficult for even Harvard Law professors to read and understand things like the new health care bill. There is absolutely no reason for a law to be written so badly unless you are trying to hide something from the general public.


By CU on 4/15/2010 8:56:03 AM , Rating: 2
They don't have unlimited funding. The USAF is laying off 2000-3000 officers. Some as high as majors and some with only one year left to retire. They will lose all military benefits if laid off. Always fun to server your country and risk your life then one year before retirement you are told sorry you have to go. They are offering payoffs first, but after that its rack'em and stack'em and let go however many you still need to lay off. Next year is suppose to bring more cuts.

Wonder how you would feel after we get attacked and they kill your family, because we don't have anything left to fight with. It is a tricky balance what to spend money on. The tea baggers just have a different opinion than you on what to spend it on.


By bigdawg1988 on 4/15/2010 11:10:12 AM , Rating: 2
So why are they laying off all those officers and spending money on this sort machine? Not very responsible. Shouldn't there be caps on how much you can go overbudget. I wrote
quote:
Text
nigh unlimited just to be facetious. I know they actually have budgets, but the thinking seems to be that we can spend whatever it takes for new equipment and that leads to higher costs because your contractors get lazy about keeping costs contained. Put a hard cap on the program(and stop adding features) and you'll see an improvement. Thing is, until we do, we'll continually go overbudget on these programs. Wonder how many of these jobs could have been saved if we had done this years ago?
I thought the tea baggers were for fiscally responsible government. But I bet they don't even care about this.


By CU on 4/15/2010 2:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
Depends if you have to many officers and not enough planes or old planes then it makes perfect sense.

Yes I do think the builder should have a cap. If they say x dollars then they can go to x+y but no more. They just have to eat the difference.


I think Predators will send A10 closer to retirement
By Calin on 4/15/2010 8:56:45 AM , Rating: 2
They want to replace the A-10 (with 30mm cannon and 1150 rounds of ammunition) with the puny F-35 with its 25mm cannon and 180 rounds of ammunition?




By CireNaes on 4/15/2010 11:36:46 AM , Rating: 3
Not at all. Due to advancements in cannon technology that 25mm cannon will be just as effective as the 30mm GAU 8A. Read up on the recent upgrades (that you would likely view as downgrades) to the C-130A Gunship's armament.

I love the A-10 and supported it in Afghanistan, but it does have a major disadvantage in response times due to it's slower speed. I think it should never go away as a concept and likely should be given to the Army as was suggested above simply because if we were ever involved in a traditional war again it would be an invaluable tool.

That being said, many are ignoring the capabilities and great contributions that this fighter will bring to the battlefield. The greatest being its ability to act as a flying satellite. The informational capacities of the aircraft are stunning. That, when combined with its greater survivability against missile threats will make it a great addition to our inventory. Battlefield awareness is almost always the defining factor of winning an engagement.

Yes the drones are great. They will also eventually replace most manned aircraft, but they are not there yet. There are very few aircraft that do not have a tumultuous and politically confrontational development and this one is no exception to the rule.

Also, this aircraft is not really meant to replace the F-15 (which the Russians have exceeded in performance). It is meant to replace the F-16, eventually the A-10, the F/A-18 (not the super Hornet), and the AV-8B. In each of it's variants it meets or exceeds the capabilities of the aircraft it is replacing.

The JSF is no joke. It is a stepping stone in the evolution of air warfare.


By Amiga500 on 4/16/2010 5:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love the A-10 and supported it in Afghanistan, but it does have a major disadvantage in response times due to it's slower speed.


Not much of a factor when either aircraft would be "taxi-ranking" above the troops.


By CireNaes on 4/18/2010 6:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and no. I'm talking about when a helicopter goes down (happened on a semi-regular basis) and aircraft are scrambled in response. Also you're assuming that all air support should be seen and heard. Yes, air support is sometimes utilized this way when you're in the middle of an engagement on the ground and the support aircraft are loitering around close by to strike again once a target is called in. But there is also an advantage in having your support at a much higher altitude so that the enemy has no idea you can call in a strike within a few moments via a JDAM because they don't even know you have that kind of immediate capability available. In a more traditional engagement where the enemy has radar up and going the JSF will have a double advantage in this regard. Also, imagine an A-10 or AV-8B diving at high speeds to potentially be used as a display of force from said high altitude. Not going to happen due to speed limitations. Each aircraft has it's nook. The JSF does more to fill various rolls than any other aircraft that I can think of.


By cmdrdredd on 4/17/2010 5:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That Pak Fa or anything of that caliber will WTFPWNT this thing any day of the week.


Spoken like a typical armchair warrior.

You know nothing. Do you know what training is? Do you know how much training the pilots in the USAF, USMC, and USN receive? Do you know how many flight hours they get every week, month, or year? Probably not.

Let me put it this way. The only air force in the world that even comes close to the dicipline, training, skill, and tactics that the combined USAF, USMC, USN has is the IAF. The Israeli Air Force is the one group in the entire world who gets as much if not more training than the United States gives it's pilots. The number of flight hours the typical Russian pilot gets is a joke. That's the difference. The capabilities of the aircraft mean something, but given a superior pilot with vastly superior training and experience in the cockpit...it's a no brainer who would win.


Don't chop the A10
By tygrus on 4/15/2010 7:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
The A10 is a flying tank and can outlive an Apache. Sure the modern warfare is fight from a safe distance with smart weapons but the battlefields are getting smaller.
The A10 is slow but so is the helicopters for close support.

I should look the specs up. Is there any airforce etc. members/experts which could explain why we do/don't need the A10 ?

I remember playing the A10:tank killer game where you could land shoot the SAM sites, tanks and buildings and the take off again :)




RE: Don't chop the A10
By Calin on 4/16/2010 4:15:35 AM , Rating: 2
The A-10 is perfect to hit a column of tanks (or a line of tanks from the side) - lots of ammunition, slower speed, high resistance to short-range defenses, or to throw lots and lots of ordnance on targets (think fire walls of incendiary weapons or cluster munitions).
However, it isn't believed this kind of concentration of force will ever be encountered - and a faster plane (we're under attack, we need air support 5 minutes ago), less visible on radar (fly fast, fly high), able to self-defend (the climb rate of the A-10 is a joke) is wanted. Just like the Air Force wants air tankers that can carry cargo, medevac, transport troops and so on, they want a plane that can cover most of the missions (so when there's a need, they'll have 900 ground attack planes, or 900 fighter planes, instead of 100 ground attack planes and 500 fighter planes).
The F-35 has similar payload to the A-10, better range, faster time-to-target, lower observability and better air fight capabilities. It certainly isn't as sturdy, but on the other hand it will be harder to hit


RE: Don't chop the A10
By lagomorpha on 4/18/2010 6:50:18 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately trying to make it capable of working in multiple situations has made it more complicated than an attack aircraft and a fighter combined. For the price of 900 F35s we could have had 900 5th gen fighters and 900 attack aircraft. And the F35 will never have the loiter time or relatively low maintenance of the A10.


By monkeyman1140 on 4/16/2010 5:09:31 PM , Rating: 1
Because of a GOP congressman's pork, a 2nd engine is being produced for the F-35, one that the Pentagon explicitly doesn't want and will never use.
Obama and the Democrats couldn't kill it but they left it unfunded...for now. If the GOP wins congress back I suspect that piece of pork will be back in the barrel.




By cmdrdredd on 4/17/2010 6:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because of a GOP congressman's pork, a 2nd engine is being produced for the F-35, one that the Pentagon explicitly doesn't want and will never use. Obama and the Democrats couldn't kill it but they left it unfunded...for now. If the GOP wins congress back I suspect that piece of pork will be back in the barrel.


Keeping the program alive helps keep hundreds of people at the GE Plant in Lynn Massachusetts. That's the only reason they wanted it in. However, it goes both ways. There are Democrats who signed off on it as well so to stamp it as a GOP only initiative is ignorant at best.

I believe in what Glenn Beck said. Let the decisions about Military programs be made by those who serve the country in uniform. If they don't want more C-17s then don't fund it because they are the ones out there fighting for us. Yes there should be civilian oversight but when they say something won't help, there's always some bureaucrat who wants brownie points in his district. This needs to stop.


602!?!?
By FITCamaro on 4/15/2010 2:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
We were supposed to be buying around 1500! So let me get this straight, we're going to have under 900 combat aircraft to replace a few thousand? Great....




Oh swell
By YashBudini on 4/21/2010 9:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
$650 toilet seat, $400 screwdriver, make room, there's a new guy in town.




For f*ck sake...
By quiksilvr on 4/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: For f*ck sake...
By xler8r on 4/15/2010 9:56:42 AM , Rating: 2
Buddy, airframes don't get any newer the more you use them.

Maintenance on aging aircraft in the long run can cost more then a new unit. It gets to the point where you draw the line and get something that has a cheaper long-term mx costing. JSF's are expensive to work on, but wont have to go in the shop nearly as much, and their modularity helps this as well.


RE: For f*ck sake...
By gamerk2 on 4/15/2010 10:19:49 AM , Rating: 1
Then buy new planes. Hell, we upgraded the F-18 (F-18E Super Hornet), which is still being produced. There are plans for an upgraded F-15 (F-15SE), which will be significantly cheaper then the F22/F35, on a proven airframe that need little modification.

I'd rather have 500 upgraded F-15's then 100 F22's and 200 F-35's.


RE: For f*ck sake...
By bigdawg1988 on 4/15/2010 11:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the airframe itself wears out over time.
I am curious as to how much it would cost to build new F18s and F15s as opposed to the F35s. Of course, that would make the Marine F35 version that much more expensive since they couldn't spread the cost amongst all three branches. Will the F35 be better than a new F15E or a new F18E? I'd really like to know. Maybe we could develop the Marine version of the F35 and build the F18E for the AF and Navy as their "2nd string" attack aircraft.
Anybody have any idea if it would be cheaper than building three versions of the F35?


RE: For f*ck sake...
By MrBungle123 on 4/15/2010 11:36:13 AM , Rating: 5
500 F15's would get their ass handed to them by 100 F22's.


RE: For f*ck sake...
By AssBall on 4/16/2010 10:42:14 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, this dude had too many drugs. If you take 500 upgraded f-15s over 100 F-35's, you are delerious. Taking them over 100 F-22's is just mentally retarded.

Hey while we are at being rediculous, I'd rather have 100,000,000$ than 100 F-22's. Hey screw it lets just use hot air balloons and molotovs. I hear they are even cheaper, AND better for the environment. I'm also going to throw non lead-based paint on people who kill animals, and shave a lightning bolt into my pubes, because, honestly, why not?


RE: For f*ck sake...
By Chernobyl68 on 4/15/2010 2:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
the Super Hornet is a new plane...it is physically a much larger airframe that the previous Hornet.

quote:
The single seat F/A-18E and two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets carry over the name and design concept of the original F/A-18, but have been extensively redesigned. The Super Hornet has a new, 25% larger airframe, larger rectangular air intakes, more powerful GE F414 engines based on F/A-18's F404, and upgraded avionics suite. The aircraft is currently in production and will eventually equip 22 squadrons. The EA-18G Growler is an electronic warfare version of the two-seat F/A-18F, which entered production in 2007. The Growler will replace the Navy's EA-6B Prowler.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18


RE: For f*ck sake...
By bigdawg1988 on 4/15/2010 11:35:49 AM , Rating: 1
Agree about the aging, but are we sure the JSF would be that much cheaper to maintain? Heck, a brand new F18 probably wouldn't have that many maintenance problems since most of the bugs should have been worked out by now, and the modularity isn't that big a deal since the three services don't share maintenance facilities (well, maybe the navy and marines do). Parts may be cheaper, but I don't know if it's worth double the cost of the plane.


RE: For f*ck sake...
By eddieroolz on 4/15/2010 2:50:40 PM , Rating: 1
It's sunk cost buddy. You aren't going to get the R&D back just because they cancelled it.

At this point, might as well follow through until the end. It's not that much more.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki