Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Frogm4n on February 24, 2004, 02:02:45 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112225,00.html
Monday, February 23, 2004
WASHINGTON — The Army has decided to cancel its Comanche helicopter program, a multi-billion project to build a new-generation chopper for armed reconnaissance missions, officials said Monday.
The contractors for Comanche (search) are Boeing Co. and Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.
With about $8 billion already invested in the program, and the production line not yet started, the cancellation is one of the largest in the history of the Army. It follows the Pentagon's decision in 2002 to cancel the Crusader artillery program (search) — against the wishes of Army leaders.
Pentagon officials said a public announcement was planned for Monday afternoon.
Loren Thompson, who follows aviation and other defense issues for the Lexington Institute (search) think tank, said he believes the Army under new chief of staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker favors ending the Comanche program, even though the service had been counting on it to provide a new reconnaissance capability.
"The Bush administration has now killed the two biggest Army weapons programs it inherited from the Clinton administration," Thompson said, referring to the Crusader and Comanche.
I personally could care less. Both programs were money sinks for large military contracts, but its quite funny how the Bush admin kills programs and noone crys foul yet when kerry voted against pork barrel military spending he supports terrorism.
-
You know if they had finished the thing in a timely fashion instead of stretching out the development by decreasing annual budgets, those things would already be in service. Same for the F-22 and V-22.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
I personally could care less. Both programs were money sinks for large military contracts, but its quite funny how the Bush admin kills programs and noone crys foul yet when kerry voted against pork barrel military spending he supports terrorism.
It's almost as ironic as people who gripe about the deficit yet criticize budget cuts.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
You know if they had finished the thing in a timely fashion instead of stretching out the development by decreasing annual budgets, those things would already be in service. Same for the F-22 and V-22.
F22 has been in development for how long? like 10 years or so?
That is rediculous. In the private sector you cant afford to do that, but the defence contractors are still sacred cows in this country. The government says "we want x for y amount of money in z time", the contractors agree then y and z are geometricly increased because of bought and paid for members of congress.
-
Frog the slowdown is a direct result of budget cuts. The government has a foolish belief that cutting the annual budget in half and doubling the length of development will not hurt things. Also when they decrease the number of units in the contract it greatly drives up the average unit cost. B-2 gets derided as a "$2B airplane" even though it wouldn't cost anywhere near $2B per unit to build more of them.
-
You have no clue what you are talking about frog. Again.
-
Elaborate Yeager.
-
Welcome to yesterday Frogtard.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Welcome to yesterday Mien Furher.:rolleyes:
Oh howso
-
*sigh* Why do I even bother replying to young, dumb, full of cumm college students who have the world figured out by age 25? Probably the entertainment value.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=109723&referrerid=3203
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
*sigh* Why do I even bother replying to young, dumb, full of cumm college students who have the world figured out by age 25? Probably the entertainment value.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=109723&referrerid=3203
Sounds like someone is jealous.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
yet when kerry voted against pork barrel military spending he supports terrorism.
So by your standard prcatically every major weapon syatem used by any of the service is unncesary pork - because frogman kerry voted against nearly all of them....
Kerry and Frogman think all of these are unnecasry Pork, and not needed by the US miliarty:
F14
F15
F16
B1
B2
Harrier
M1 Abrams
M2/M3 Bradley
Apache
Patriot
The Navys Most modern warships
What on earth is lefft? What will the US military fight wrs with? Vietnam era F105? M113APC and M60 tanks? WW2 ear destroyers?
"The litany of weapons systems that Kerry opposed included conventional as well as nuclear equipment: the B-1 bomber, the B-2, the F-15, the F-14A, the F-14D, the AH-64 Apache helicopter, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Patriot missile, the Aegis air-defense cruiser and the Trident missile. And he sought to reduce procurement of the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile and the F-16 jet. "
He basically voted to remove the US military....
Which weapons are OK for the US army to have according to you traitors? Can our men in the field have automatic weapons at least?
Its a consistent pattern of voting againast the vbery weapons systems that protect our troops and assure they get home if they have to go to battle - yet the war herro klerry voted against all of these.
Degenerates....
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Welcome to yesterday Frogtard.:rolleyes:
Gotta agree.
Besides, everyone already knows Boeing can outmilk Haliburton everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.
-
Your not thinking again grun. Alot of those weopon systems came way before he was even in the senate, and your assumeing alot without hearing his explanationl.
I would have voted against alot of military spending just on the basis that the bills gave away to much cash.
-
I'm sorry frog but all thpose things neeed maintannec and upgrade money to keep running, otherwise they are useless. And just logiacally all of those systems are so unrealted there is no way he was just concerned about a few cases of wasteful spending attached to these bills. It was a clear concise pattern of votes against these weapons syastems and not wasteful spending. There is a reason his voting record is actually left of the kooky Dennis Kuchinic...
The guys voting record on defense is clear and he has to be taken to task for it, war hero or not...
Yes I bet you would have voted aginst all of them too.... We dont need any of it, no we donet all useless pork...
-
Its a consistent pattern of voting againast the very weapons systems that protect our troops and assure they get home if they have to go to battle - yet the war hero kerry voted against all of these.
Grun, taking his votes out of context (like the Bush Campaign is) does make Kerry look bad. Why not look deeper into which votes he cast the nay and when. Did he vote against the "old" Patriot missile program that didn't work, or the "old' Bradley with faulty armour that was vulnerable to small arms fire. Voting against a project laden with pork does not mean he did not later approve spending on the very same project after said pork was trimmed from the budget and defects corrected. Nobody wants our troops charging into battle with WWII surplus, including Sen. Kerry.
-
Yes Kerry heroically voted against every major weaposn sytem used by the mitary because they all didnt work...
Its like racist Racist saying he voted aginst all integration attempts because none was perfect just yet, would you buy that load of BS? And now some apologist syas it was taken out of context...
I didnt think so....
BTW wahat was wrong with the F15? By the time he ame into office it was a good program - he voted to cut it... Useless and vulnerable to slingshots right?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And now some apologist syas it was taken out of context...
I didnt think so....
BTW wahat was wrong with the F15? By the time he ame into office it was a good program - he voted to cut it... Useless and vulnerable to slingshots right?
All I'm saying is look at each vote individually. He may have voted against the F-15 in favor of the newer, better, stealthier F-22? How would you spin that vote?
-
That makes no sense. We need the f15 today, the F22 is years away espcially in the 80s and 90s when its most likely he made the vote.
Just be proud of your candidate and his voting record, no reason to make excuses.
-
It is all guess work. You say he may have done it in the 80's. I say he may have done it in the 90's. Without any FACTS there is absolutely no way to make a valid arguement or intelligent debate. That is why you must look deeper into an issue and not form opinions solely based on fw:fw:fw:fw: emails or 15 second sound bites.
-
I say its likely 80s or 90s. Either way the F22 is at least 10+ years away and he votes to cut funding for f15 and F16. Lemme guess he voted cut f16 because the JSF F-35 is what, 20 years away?
Laughable.
Like I said, stand proudly by your candidate and his voting record on defense.
BTW Why did he vote to cut CIA funding? That should be a good one. :)
-
I don't know why he voted the way he did on CIA funding. Why did Bush take more vacation than any Presdient in history before the 9/11 attacks? He didn't give a damn about national security?
-
America got blindsided by an intelligence failiure on 911, just like December 7 1941. Bush bears no more responsibilty for 911 as did Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor. Intrestingly both guys are blamed by conspiracy nuts for orchestrating or allowing the attacks to occur to suit their political goals... It was a screwup by everyone. BTW how did people react to the correction to these intelligence problems in the patriot act? Everyone wants ideal perfect security but some of that does and must logiacally come at the expese of privacy, but nobody wants that.... I think people just want to biotch and moan. :)
Kerry's behavior bothers me because he was agaibns so much funding for so many weapons, I'm really dunbfounded as to what - if anything - he sees as equipment the army needs. Nowe I'm sure he will sing his war hero tune now and be all National; Security like but he will have to be taken to task for his consitent 20 year anti defense, anti security and anti intelligence voting record.
Let me ask you an honest question, do you not cringe or roll your eyes when Kerry mentions that he is an expert on National Security in his speeches?
-
Grun, you been drinking? You got a whole load of spelling errors in that last post.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Grun, you been drinking? You got a whole load of spelling errors in that last post.
-SW
LOL :)
No drinking, I just dont much care to spell things correctly on the bbs - force of habit I'm more careless here which i cant afford to be in wring school stuff. :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
<1>America got blindsided by an intelligence failiure on 911, just like December 7 1941. Bush bears no more responsibilty for 911 as did Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor. Intrestingly both guys are blamed by conspiracy nuts for orchestrating or allowing the attacks to occur to suit their political goals... :)
<2>Kerry's behavior bothers me because he was agaibns so much funding for so many weapons, I'm really dunbfounded as to what - if anything - he sees as equipment the army needs. Nowe I'm sure he will sing his war hero tune now and be all National; Security like but he will have to be taken to task for his consitent 20 year anti defense, anti security and anti intelligence voting record.
<3>Let me ask you an honest question, do you not cringe or roll your eyes when Kerry mentions that he is an expert on National Security in his speeches?
1. OK, I think you understand my point. Rash accusations without facts to back them up are pointless.
2. How many votes did he cast in favor of weapons and intellegence spending?
3. No. In fact I believe he is much more of an expert than Bush was before he took office.
-
How is he an expert?
What sort of expert on defense cuts intelligence spending and doesnt belive in weapons systems?
How many vote did he cast in favor of weapons? Well there arent many left for him to cast a positive vote on... So it should be easy to find, no?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Its like racist Racist saying he voted aginst all integration attempts because none was perfect just yet, would you buy that load of BS? And now some apologist syas it was taken out of context...
"racist Racist"? New defence stategy, applying adjectives that you hear a lot about yourself on your opponents, interesting.....
Nevertheless, in your lively rants above you cried about the poor serviceman and -women who would only have had muskets and frontloaders if it was up to Kerry. Obviously they are entitled to the best money can buy TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, but as always you made a fundamental error of reasoning in your posts.
If a representative opposes for example the B-1 which is put into service anway, and votes against the B-2 because it is too expensive and the USAF already has the B-1, than that does not mean that he/she does not want the AF to have either one of them. It very likely implies that he/she thinks that having two strat bombers is a bit overredundant and the money could be used elsewhere. Same goes for the 'no' on the other weapons programs.
Ok, now go and read some more Drudge or something...
-
It's a good job they still are continuing with the Super Sub-Sonic Offensive Defensive 2nd Strike Bomber!
-
Originally posted by Thud
"racist Racist"? New defence stategy, applying adjectives that you hear a lot about yourself on your opponents, interesting.....
Nevertheless, in your lively rants above you cried about the poor serviceman and -women who would only have had muskets and frontloaders if it was up to Kerry. Obviously they are entitled to the best money can buy TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, but as always you made a fundamental error of reasoning in your posts.
If a representative opposes for example the B-1 which is put into service anway, and votes against the B-2 because it is too expensive and the USAF already has the B-1, than that does not mean that he/she does not want the AF to have either one of them. It very likely implies that he/she thinks that having two strat bombers is a bit overredundant and the money could be used elsewhere. Same goes for the 'no' on the other weapons programs.
Ok, now go and read some more Drudge or something...
Talk about a rant.... Wow!
But anyway your argument doesnt work because he effectively voted against all those programs...
He voted against B1 and ahainst B2. He voted aginst F15 and F16... He voted against M! and against the lighter M2/M3...
Kerry apologists need to look elsewhere....
Why not just be proud of his stong voting record on national defense, no need to make excuses. Stand by your man!
-
Grun, the point you are not grasping is there are multiple votes on every weapons system during it's lifetime. Casting a no does not mean he wants the system eliminated. He may have later voted yes on the same system after changes were made. There may have been a rider attached that was not approved and later the very same project, sans pork, approved. Should the Senate approve everything that is put in front of them, pork and all? You would be screaming bloody murder if that happened.
Rumsfeld just cancelled the Comanche. Must mean Bush is weak on military as well, using your logic.
-
I understand what you are saying. However whast I have read is the repeated use of the word "cancel." If Kerry really ended up voting for all those things in the end then it would have been a simple matter of them saying so, which they have not. And don't think for a second that Kerry's defense record is only a topic on this bbs, it has been featured in numerous national publications and I have yet to see any quoted Kerry representative say anything to the effect of what you are arguing. They acknowledge that he voted as demonstated by his record. Their best excuse is that Kerry was young and stupid at the time.