Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: trax1 on April 06, 2009, 06:21:14 PM
-
I was just reading an article about a new Defense budget being proposed, it would cut F-22 production and increase production of the F-35, you can read the article here.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/finance/20090406/Defense.Budget/ (http://www.comcast.net/articles/finance/20090406/Defense.Budget/)
-
Yea, stop producing the F-22 would cut 90,000 jobs. Ah, American Government once again make bad piss pour judgment.
-
Yea, stop producing the F-22 would cut 90,000 jobs. Ah, American Government once again make bad piss pour judgment.
Sorry, I don't really have any expertise in this field, but I'm confused of how it could take 90,000 people to make a few hundred F-22s.
-
i am not sure about that too. i just repeating what i saw on the news about it.
-
they might be moving it to the F35 production
-
they might be moving it to the F35 production
Thats what the article proposed. Nice to see their not spending 13 billion on new Marine One Helos.
-
Sorry, I don't really have any expertise in this field, but I'm confused of how it could take 90,000 people to make a few hundred F-22s.
Not sure, but if I was TRYING to use up 90,000 people, I would do it like this:
Subcontracting each and every individual part
Count the people who make each screw and bolt
The people who make the rubber
the guy who supervises the guy who supervises assembly,
you get the picture. Fanatacism methinks. I still think we should at least keep producing the sexy plane, since neither is all THAT impressive. (By the sexy plane, I mean the Raptor :D )
-
I think 'slightly less hideous' would be more appropriate :lol
-
It's not really a budget cut if they are spending the money somewhere else, is it? Building fewer of one fighter in order to build more of another is a cut? Only in the sense that they are cutting production.
I see no mention of a decrease in spending. Matter of fact, instead of increasing spending, they propose to spend more on systems better suited to what is needed now. Who'd a thunk it? Making choices instead of unchecked government spending, on whatever they are spending on.
Ohhh Noez!! They're cutting the... uhh... OK, they're cutting my stuff....
wrongway
IN
-
It's not really a budget cut if they are spending the money somewhere else, is it? Building fewer of one fighter in order to build more of another is a cut? Only in the sense that they are cutting production.
Thats why I said cuts, not cut. :aok
-
Yes we will change from X-wing production for massive amounts of tie fighters that will swarm the enemy by squads of three's!, muwahahaha..-cough-
-Shrugs-
-
Thats why I said cuts, not cut. :aok
But you also said Budget[/i].
When are they taking away our guns again?
wrongway
-
Yes we will change from X-wing production for massive amounts of tie fighters that will swarm the enemy by squads of three's!, muwahahaha..-cough-
-Shrugs-
Worked in WWII.
-
But you also said Budget[/i].
When are they taking away our guns again?
wrongway
So you wouldn't classify the reduction in F-22's as a budget cut? I never stated anywhere that the amount of money in the defense budget was being reduced, what I said was that they were making cuts from the defense budget.
-
So you wouldn't classify the reduction in F-22's as a budget cut? I never stated anywhere that the amount of money in the defense budget was being reduced, what I said was that they were making cuts from the defense budget.
But they're not making cuts from the Defense Budget (that I can see). They are cutting F-22 production and increasing F-35 production.
They are taking money from A and spending it on B, C, and D. I see no decrease in money. Are F-35s cheaper to build?
The Defence Budget money isn't going anywhere. It's still ALL in the Defence budget.
I think we're arguing semantics here. Some F-22s are are proposed to be cut from the Defence budget. true. But there is no spending cut. So, the Defence budget is not being cut, allegedly.
Please note, this is not political but grammatical.
:D
wrongway
What they are NOT doing, as far as I can tell, is increasing the defence budget.
-
They are taking money from A and spending it on B, C, and D. I see no decrease in money.
Yeah, thats basically what I was stating, there just cutting spending in some areas, while increasing it in others.
-
Actually I am watching Gates on C Span now going over his plans.
So far everything he is doing and why seems to make sense to me.
Cutting the F22 makes sense at the moment (We already have 188 of em we arent really putting to much use)
Upping the spending on wounded vets rehabilitation is WAY over due
Upping the recruitment and training of Helicopter pilots and maintanence crews.
Upping production of predator drones by 60%
Building at least 3 new navy destroyers
To name just a few.
Gotta admit I was sceptical at best but.
All in all I approve
BTW
Im officially IN
This topic can only go in one direction LOL
-
Oh yeah, I definitely think what Gates is doing is a good thing, like you said, as far as the Raptor goes we really don't have too much use from them atm, there aren't any other nations with generation 5 fighters, and I doubt there will be anytime soon. Right now what we need most are things that are gonna help in the fight against insurgence, like unmanned drones like the Predators.
-
Actually I am watching Gates on C Span now going over his plans.
So far everything he is doing and why seems to make sense to me.
Cutting the F22 makes sense at the moment (We already have 188 of em we arent really putting to much use)
Upping the spending on wounded vets rehabilitation is WAY over due
Upping the recruitment and training of Helicopter pilots and maintanence crews.
Upping production of predator drones by 60%
Building at least 3 new navy destroyers
To name just a few.
Gotta admit I was sceptical at best but.
All in all I approve
BTW
Im officially IN
This topic can only go in one direction LOL
I was agreeing. Until I hit that line. And from there, my support spirals down.
-
I was agreeing. Until I hit that line. And from there, my support spirals down.
Whats wrong with building more Predator drones?
-
Whats wrong with building more Predator drones?
That depends. From a budget perspective, nothing. From a prospective-fighterpilot perspective, everything! More predators means fewer manned aircraft, means fewer pilot slots, means tougher competition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8-kNPKNCtg
-
That depends. From a budget perspective, nothing. From a prospective-fighterpilot perspective, everything! More predators means fewer manned aircraft, means fewer pilot slots, means tougher competition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8-kNPKNCtg
Yeah but it also puts fewer pilots lives in danger, I know that all fighter pilots would rather have themselves in the air then an unmanned drone, but the fact is unmanned drones can stay in the air longer, cost much less then the cost of training those pilots & the jets they fly, and again put fewer American lives on the line.
I still think that there is & will always be a need for the manned fighter jets, but the unmanned drone is also a valuable asset to have.
-
Yeah but it also puts fewer pilots lives in danger, I know that all fighter pilots would rather have themselves in the air then an unmanned drone, but the fact is unmanned drones can stay in the air longer, cost much less then the cost of training those pilots & the jets they fly, and again put fewer American lives on the line.
I still think that there is & will always be a need for the manned fighter jets, but the unmanned drone is also a valuable asset to have.
Which is why I say, from a government standpoint, more predators is GREAT! But from a fighter pilot's perspective, it could be the end of the world!
-
the F-22 raptor is like the i7
the F-35 is like the E8400
notice everyone here is suggested into getting the E8400..
something along those lines...
-
Which is why I say, from a government standpoint, more predators is GREAT! But from a fighter pilot's perspective, it could be the end of the world!
So.......
I guess all the hot shots are going to find a need to train harder, study more, and fly better. I see nothing wrong with tough competition. It weeds out all non-hackers.
Besides, why do you think this game is so popular? You know that it is a government conspiracy to train us all to be Predator operators. :noid
-
Besides, why do you think this game is so popular? You know that it is a government conspiracy to train us all to be Predator operators. :noid
:rofl
-
Which is why I say, from a government standpoint, more predators is GREAT! But from a fighter pilot's perspective, it could be the end of the world!
Naaa. It only means that in the future. you may be able to serve your country from the comfort of your own living room.
Think of it as a combination of of playing AH. And flying RC model aircraft.
Your only real fear is that the government will hire 13 year old squeekers who are better then you LOL
-
Naaa. It only means that in the future. you may be able to serve your country from the comfort of your own living room.
Think of it as a combination of of playing AH. And flying RC model aircraft.
Your only real fear is that the government will hire 13 year old squeekers who are better then you LOL
Yeah, they'll covertly look for the best fighter pilots on XBox live and recruit them. :rofl
-
Actually I am watching Gates on C Span now going over his plans.
So far everything he is doing and why seems to make sense to me.
Cutting the F22 makes sense at the moment (We already have 188 of em we arent really putting to much use)
Upping the spending on wounded vets rehabilitation is WAY over due
Upping the recruitment and training of Helicopter pilots and maintanence crews.
Upping production of predator drones by 60%
Building at least 3 new navy destroyers
To name just a few.
Gotta admit I was sceptical at best but.
All in all I approve
BTW
Im officially IN
This topic can only go in one direction LOL
Well put.
Skuzzy's going to lock this thread.
-
Well put.
Skuzzy's going to lock this thread.
Why, we can't talk about a defense budget on here?
-
Why, we can't talk about a defense budget on here?
It's only a matter of time til someone makes it political. Oops, did I just make it political by using the word "political" ?
All ur thredz are belong to us.............. :noid
-
But they're not making cuts from the Defense Budget (that I can see). They are cutting F-22 production and increasing F-35 production.
They are taking money from A and spending it on B, C, and D. I see no decrease in money. Are F-35s cheaper to build?
The Defence Budget money isn't going anywhere. It's still ALL in the Defence budget.
I think we're arguing semantics here. Some F-22s are are proposed to be cut from the Defence budget. true. But there is no spending cut. So, the Defence budget is not being cut, allegedly.
Please note, this is not political but grammatical.
:D
wrongway
What they are NOT doing, as far as I can tell, is increasing the defence budget.
Shhh, don't provide this fact to them. If you do, then they'll stop getting paranoid. Wait, they'll just get paranoid on another issue.
-
Crap!
Now I'm paranoid :furious
-
Crap!
Now I'm paranoid :furious
Silence!!!! Now get behind your kit and play "Paranoid."! That's an order! :devil
-
There was an article in Air Forces Monthly that was quite frightening.
For years there has been the theory that eventually the services will get to the point where their aircraft are so expensive that they cannot buy enough to fill all their requirements. This ends with 1 F-88 being bought and the Air Force getting it Monday thru Friday, the Navy gets it on the Weekends and the Marines get it that extra day every leap year.
AFM said that the rate of retirement of the F-16s and F-15s was such that there was going to be a fighter gap. The gap would be where we do not have enough fighters to cover the requirements, and they were not talking 10 or 20 they were talking hundreds of aircraft.
They were also talking about how much those Raptors cost, and what buying ONE of them would cover in the defense budget in terms of operational costs and aircraft purchases.
U.S. Air Force and Navy officials gave Congress a bleak assessment of the
Pentagon's future fighter fleet, warning lawmakers the military might be 900 fighter jets short of what it will need around 2020.
The Air Force says it will need about 380 F-22 Raptors. (Tech. Sgt. Ben Bloker / U.S. Air Force)
Senior naval officials in the last few months have talked publicly about a "fighter gap" between 2015 and 2025, during which time they say the Navy will be short of the planes they expect would be needed for the Navy to carry out possible missions. During an April 9 Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee hearing, Rear Adm. Allen Myers, director of the service's air warfare division, indicated the sea service's gap could be about 70 planes deep.
As panel members were still digesting that figure, senior Air Force officials dropped their own acquisition bomb. Air Force Lt. Gen. Daniel Darnell indicated his service could face an even larger deficit of needed fighters, possibly as large as "over 800 fighters" between 2017 and 2024. Darnell is the Air Force's deputy chief of staff for air, space and information operations, plans and requirements.
Service spokeswoman Lt. Col. Jennifer Cassidy confirmed the 800 fighter figure about an hour after the hearing was gaveled closed by the panen's chairman, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.
Part of that so-called "gap" reflects senior Air Force leaders' staunch belief in the need to field about 380 Lockheed Martin-built F-22 Raptors. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, including powerful Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, has repeatedly shot down the service's intentions, holding firm to the planned buy of 183.
But even if the service eventually wins out in the ongoing F-22 debate and gets around 400 Raptors, "that won't completely make up the gap," Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, military deputy to the service's acquisition chief, told reporters following the hearing.
The gap "is all about the JSF production rate," he said, referring to how quickly - and how many - of Lockheed's tri-service, international F-35 Joint Strike Fighters the Air Force can buy between now and then.
Lockheed is building the multibillion-dollar fighter for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, as well as about a dozen international partners. But while attempting to get a grasp on how it can manage its "fighter gap," Navy officials have floated the idea of delaying its version of the F-35 in favor of buying new - and upgrading older - Boeing-made F/A-18 Hornets.
However, if naval officials opt for such a plan, it would send ripple waves across the trans-Atlantic fighter program, Hoffman warned.
"We have very tight room for hiccups with the JSF schedule," he told reporters. "If one [participant] changes its schedule, that'll have adverse effects for all of us."
Officials from both services told the subcommittee they have launched a slate of reviews aimed at determining how to manage their perceived tactical aircraft gaps.
The Navy expects by the end of the summer to have sufficient data on its gap to start making decisions on how best to manage it, according to Myers and William Balderson, deputy assistant Navy secretary for air programs.
"It is our challenge" during the remainder of the 2009 budget cycle, and while building the 2010 Navy budget request, to begin figuring out how to fill the sea service's gap, Myers told a reporter.
The Air Force, meantime, already has launched its own review to determine how many legacy F-15s and F-16s it might have to try and keep operationally fit to help manage its perceived fighter deficit, Hoffman said.
The handful of panel members who attended the session were sympathetic to each service's tales of woe. Near the conclusion of the session, Lieberman said the subcommittee will do "everything within our power to stretch" federal resources so the officials could buy what they feel is needed to conduct future missions.
Hoffman also told the subcommittee a decision is needed on whether the Air Force will be granted a budget plus-up for more F-22As by November. Hoffman said a decision must come by November so the service can lock in another significant purchase - it has been buying 20 Raptors a year.
Such a move would allow the service to avoid cost growth, which he says is inevitable if no decision is made by late this year because that's when some F-22 component suppliers will cease work on their portions of the advanced fighters. Restarting such work would cost more than keeping those production facilities humming at current speeds, Hoffman said.
-
Good article there Fencer. :aok
-
So you wouldn't classify the reduction in F-22's as a budget cut? I never stated anywhere that the amount of money in the defense budget was being reduced, what I said was that they were making cuts from the defense budget.
They are not cutting the F22. They are ending the production of it at 187, 4 more than what the contract was for. They were hoping that the government would buy 20-60 more of them. That is what happened to the F22.
-
They are not cutting the F22. They are ending the production of it at 187, 4 more than what the contract was for. They were hoping that the government would buy 20-60 more of them. That is what happened to the F22.
Does this mean I can stop being :noid now?
-
Naaa. It only means that in the future. you may be able to serve your country from the comfort of your own living room.
Think of it as a combination of of playing AH. And flying RC model aircraft.
Which is something I very much DON'T want to do.
-
Which is something I very much DON'T want to do.
esp when people realize that there no perk points and it actually cost money when you lose a plane
-
esp when people realize that there no perk points and it actually cost money when you lose a plane
That, and it's really a lot harder. I SUCK in aces high, and other video games, because I don't have the physical feedback I'm used to IRL. Honestly, a manned aircraft (Were it not for the G-limit of the human body) would beat an unmanned bird anyday, because the pilot just has more information to work with.
-
Worked in WWII.
only cause the nazi's didn't have the force. ;)
Just playin'.