not sure if this will ever get any traction.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/senators_pushing_back_on_f22_c.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/senators_pushing_back_on_f22_c.asp
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Senate Pushback on F-22/C-17 Cancellation
- Thread starter Mumbles
- Start date
The rescaling needs to happen. There is no way that we're slingshotting too far into being a counterinsurgency force as the letter warns against. So the Air Force says 180 F-22s isn't enough...I think they might be a little biased. And why do they want the 2010 quadrennial defense review to come out before any bold decisions are made? I suspect Mr Gates already knows what it's going to say. I also suspect that Mr Gates and his cadre are familiar with most O-Plans and what they would require. Senators don't have time for that nor should they. Unfortunately, their tap dancing is causing them to have selective hearing, which is only listening to the people who support the contract in their states rather than what is actually required by our contingency plans.
Bittersweet for me because my senior Senator is already on board, and I'm on board with Mr Gates. Lockheed Martin has a significant amount of F-22 work in Georgia.
Bittersweet for me because my senior Senator is already on board, and I'm on board with Mr Gates. Lockheed Martin has a significant amount of F-22 work in Georgia.
Redux
Well-Known Member
Who knows, they built about 285 C141's and they earned their keep.
It's a pretty useful platform. It carries a metric butt-ton, but can still go into some pretty austere places.
Clux4
Banned
What would we rather have, 1 C-17 or 1.6 C-130J. I hear the folks flying the C-17 are really against expeditionary use.
You mean there is anybody in the Air Force that is for the idea of expeditionary use?
That would mean no Per Diem or Hotels.I find it interesting that as soon as Gates announced the reallocations, the first response from many congressmen and senators was along the lines of "hell no, we'll lose jobs in our districts, I'm completely against this." The last time I checked, the military wasn't in place to provide jobs, electoral platforms and a revenue source for defense contractors...
Bottom line, I think Gates was completely correct in trying to restructure/reallocate defense spending to more practical and useful projects (i.e. away from too many F-22s/airborne laser to providing replacements and upgrades to systems and platforms that have proven their mettle.)
Bottom line, I think Gates was completely correct in trying to restructure/reallocate defense spending to more practical and useful projects (i.e. away from too many F-22s/airborne laser to providing replacements and upgrades to systems and platforms that have proven their mettle.)
I am not saying it is not a useful platform or that they are not earning their keep, but if the USAF says they have enough and the last 15 or so were only bought due to Congressional plus-ups, why are they still trying to buy more? We got bigger fish to fry, like tankers that got built before the C-141's that need replacing and C-130's with wing-box issues. Time to put the C-17 to bed, we have enough.
It is supposed to be a defense budget, not a make-work program.
That's exactly what I was trying to get at. Thanks man.
I cannot hateIn general I think SECDEF is doing a good job in making the necessary cuts, but I am against cancelling the second ABL prototype. I know it's a big if, but If the ABL works as advertised, then those aircraft could give the US, and by extension the world, a tremendous strategic advantage against nuclear proliferation. A fleet of those aircraft encircling, say, North Korea or Iran, in a style similar to Crome Dome could take the nuclear card away from those nations. Furthermore, if that proves effective, what then is the incentive to go nuclear for future North Koreas?
I just think that that potential capability is too great a strategic tool to not pursue in earnest. However, I am grateful that the ABL project wasn't cancelled outright, though it probably will be within two years...
Eh. Given the price tag of the ABL, there's no way in hell we'd ever be able to buy enough to keep a continuous airborne presence anywhere. Linebacker Aegis ships give you the on-scene presence and persistence, for about the same price tag. Airborne lasers are sexy, but when we're under a budget crunch, we can't go dumping that much money into an unproven technology that may or may not work out in the long run, when we have other systems that can do the work now.
It is great that you can sit back and armchair quarterback this issue, but some people have a real stake in these programs. My mom works at the C-17 plant in Long Beach; if it goes she loses her job and my parents lose their house. I agree that dead, inefficient programs have no place in today's military however I would argue that the C-17's capabilities (and the potential relatively inexpensive upgrades that would make them even better) make it hardly a dead, worthless program.