It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House threatens veto over F-22 jet fighters

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   


WASHINGTON - Preparing for a possible showdown with Congress, the White House on Wednesday threatened to veto legislation authorizing a $680 billion military budget if it contains money for jet fighters the Pentagon doesn't want.

www.azcentral.com...


Is this a good or bad thing ?

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread Page):
AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.



[edit on 24/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Gates is an Ass! he's clueless-Does he really think from now on out we only going to fight Terrorists on the ground?

The Threats that have been there are always there. I'd rather have 2000 F22’s and spend the money than have one foot soldier die on the ground. We need technology to defeat the enemy with as few lives lost as possible.

The Terrorist issue has be dealt with in other ways, but that’s not going to be our only fight in the next 20 years.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SharkBait
 


Gates is an ass? Hell, his boss and all his cohorts are asses. The F-22 is needed badly in numbers. This thing is a true force multiplier, and will help keep potential wolves at bay.

The F-15 was a stellar performer, and was a prime example of advancing a technology to the point that it dominated for decades.

I don't care how good an aircraft is, if you get swarmed, you're going down. But if you have a few numbers of your own, on top of the advanced technologies that are in abundance within the F-22, then loss percentage is drastically dropped.

John Wesley Hardin was reported to have killed 44 men. I guarantee you that if 44 men had ganged up on John Wesley Hardin at once, even this renowned gunfighter would have gone down quickly.

Build more F-22's.

Can the national healthcare.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
You already spend more than the world combined on your military and your 11 trillion(conservative number) dollars in debt.I mean honestly...im sure your fancy fighters wont see any serious action except for dropping bombs on AK-47 wielding taliban in the near future.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
We not building them for the Taliban- Korea, Russia, China, Iran, Pick one i might have missed about 4-5 others that don't like us.


[edit on 24-6-2009 by SharkBait]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SharkBait
 


Yes because they are going to try and invade or start a war with a country that has over 5000 nuclear warheads....super powers fight economically these days.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Solomons]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


Maybe you should read up on who is doing what, and where they're doing it.

I would recommend Aviation Week and Space Technology, which keeps constant tabs on both civilian and military developments.

It doesn't take great vision to see the sun rising.

And if you're not from here, then it's not costing you anything, is it?



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


Every aircraft in our arsenal is almost at its end as far as usefulness is concerned. The F-18 is getting old and airframes are starting to crack and fatigue. That's are actual newest fighter other than the F-22 and its design is 25 years old now. If you've never been on the ground without air support I suggest you keep your mouths shut because you know NOT of what you speak!!

Zindo

[edit on 6/24/2009 by ZindoDoone]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I think you missing the point here- If two countries have Nuke's that cancels them out-Neither will use it against the other because they know what will happen-END OF THE EARTH-

So now that you cannot use them you have to turn to technology to keep the enemy at bay. The better the technology the less lives we lose.

In the end of the day you cannot defeat a country with Nukes, you can destroy most of their military but that's as far as you can risk going.You cannot put them into the corner where they feel they need to use the weapon.

We lost 1000's of lives in the 2nd world war because we more or less had the same technology as Germany. Lucky we had the Bomb !



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


This is a forum where people discuss certain topics incase you didn't know,so telling me to shut up is ironic.As for dooper,read above.If every person on the forum only discussed happenings in their own country the board would be a boring and divisive place.Anyway your right i dont know much about military...i do know 11 trillion+ dollars is alot of debt though which is linked to the rest of the world in one way or another.I'll leave you to your discussion.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 

You're absolutely correct. All that debt that our dumbass leaders have bestowed on us is a problem. Just not yours directly.

Our debt means that other countries just may have to pony up and start funding their own defense in totality.

All that money saved by having a big brother in overwatch has allowed all those social programs you've enjoyed.

Well, now it looks like we're going to be cursed with social programs and won't have the money to fend for everyone else.

Develop your own fighters. Increase your own navy. Increase your own armies.

Isn't fun, is it?



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Yes F-22 is sorely needed, the F-18 did a good job but its getting too old. I hope the people from these other countries realize that we are aligned to them by treaties. If they are attacked we are obliged to come to their defense. Thank You ! USA for protecting us and our social democracies!

I hope they fund thousands of more Drones for the future, this is where technology is taking us...



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


the f-18 will not be replaced by the f-22. the raptor is airforce.
the f-35 thunderbolt will replace the f-18. the f-35 is a scaled down version of the raptor, but only has 1 engine and no thrust vectoring.
it also has no supercruise,which is going faster than the speed of sound,without afterburners.
there is a younger version of the f-18,called the superhornet.
my nephew flies one. these are faster and more maneuverable.

just a little fyi.
but i would guess you knew that already from your avatar,and ground knowledge.thanks for serving.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Spectre0o0]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Once again a Democrat Presidency is starting to screw over the military.

I bet dooper remembers the Clinton years.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
the f-22 is freakin awesome, but unfortunately it is already outdated.

UAVs are the future. there in no way around that...i would say keep the f22s we have and then do it right, take the man out. one life saved for it is well worth it...

the future UAV will be able to take dow any man flown fighter ever. g-force, armament capacity, speed, maneuverability. we waste enough money. we shouldnt waste it on outdated technology...as cool as I think it is.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Gates is getting dangerous. He has been on a one man irrational drive for some time now, and foams at the mouth when the F-22 is mentioned. His logic is severely flawed, and perspective horribly wrong. The Pentagon, current USAF leadership, as well the two former AF chiefs that Gates fired do indeed have studies which show more than 187 F-22's are needed. However these generals desire an occupation, and not an early retirement. As such, we are to believe 187, a number arrived to by sheer bureaucratic incompetence, is somehow a magical and sufficient number. Congress has been keeping a few programs alive that Gates wants to kill. The F-22 will find its way into the defense bill, mark my words. Gates and Obama will never dare veto a Department of Defense fiscal budget. I cannot even recall the last time such a thing happened. It would alienate so many powerful individuals and make for horrible politics. It's a sad, sad, empty, and irrational threat. It is unfortunate that the US military's biggest threat is not a foreign enemy, but it's own defense chief!



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


Sorry amigo, I didn't mean to single you out there. I meant that in the plural to all who don't understand how difficult it is to NOT have sufficient air support.

Spectre
I know that the F-22 is Airforce but a fighter with the same qualifications is needed by the rest of our forces. So I imagine if we actually get an administration that understands and cares about the true needs of our protection, there will be versions for them also as well as the F-35 and the UAV's!

Zindo



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
This place is really going to the dogs.


Too many chest thumpers that are too blinded by patriotism, and too excited by big fancy weapons to see reality.


The USAF right now, does not want the F-22. Right now, the USAF wants CAS bomb trucks, and it wants both strategic and tactical airlift capabilities.

It also wants improved intelligence from UAVs or other methods.

It does not need or want a silver bullet at the expense of these things.


In 10 years time, the F-22's main advantage relative to the rest of the world will be diluted, if not effectively removed.


What happens when someone eventually gets around to sticking an anti-missile DEW on the pylon of a flanker? All of a sudden that big sniper rifle the F-22 has is removed from the field of play and your back to a knife fight.

Who here fancies sending your $150 million F-22 up against $50 million flankers*? Thats a helluva way to win a war.

*Or worse, $30 million UCAVs?


They are making decisions like this BECAUSE THEY KNOW MORE THAN YOU.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
^^ exactly - the cold war is over , the entire methodology has been turned on its head and the USAF wasn`t ready for it - the USN cancelled the avenger when it knew it was a lame duck - but they ended up with a worse one but ho hum;

The F35 i honeslty doubt in 99% of its life will be the `uber stealth` platform they say it is - tabs will be ripped off and it`ll be lugging racks of 250 and 500 lb bombs everywhere



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


That might be true if it wasn't for the fact that for every aircraft the Soviets can get into the air, there 3-4 on the ground being cannibalism to keep the one flying! We made the very large mistake of believing an airwar would only be fought with missiles and no human dogfighting. It ain't so. Nothing matches the human there making decisions on the spot while in the grips of the fight. I may be thumping my chest but having worked in the area for 30+ years I can tell you to think only one way of fighting is the way of the future is folly! We need all available concepts used in conjunction to maintain the upper hand.

Zindo



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join