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.

 

Air Force looking at losing entire fleets

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by D_Mason
 


I think what you forget is that Syria might be the only worry at the moment but you don't go building defences against people that are more likely to attack you, you build defences against your strongest enemy.

Cut down the Air Force and then see if it's only Syria that would want to attack you.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Additional cuts being looked at.

MQ-9 Reaper: Unknown what the final number would be
C-130: Retiring the oldest while buying more J models. Currently 340 in service, need is closer to 300.
KC-10: Entire fleet when the KC-46 enters service. First cuts could come when the first 18 -46s enter.
C-5A: Most of the A fleet, due to reliability issues. The A has been held onto by Congress to retain money in their districts.



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by D_Mason
 


So you would rather give up any advantage, fly our F-15s and F-16s that are already approaching 30 years old, and ready to fall out of the sky, and start over, on ANOTHER 20 year development program, instead of trying to fix the problems with the F-35. Makes perfect sense to me.


No, the alternative is a Sea Raptor, a navalized F-22.

F-22 is late, expensive and good. Late, expensive and mediocre?
edit on 24-9-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


You're still looking at years in development. You have to strengthen the airframe, strengthen the landing gear, redesign the tail hook, etc. You're looking at probably 8-10 years after the problems crop up with the redesign.



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Stealthbomber
reply to post by D_Mason
 


So basically because you saw an F-35 leaking once the whole programs doomed?

Every program had teething problems, even the f-16 and f-15, but as you said they work fine now and so will the F-35 eventually.


Was that a purposeful attempt at trivializing the issue? The list of problems with the JSF right now is not a trivial matter.



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by D_Mason
 


No it's not, but a leak in flight is.

The list of problems with the F-35 has decreased significantly, and is improving weekly. Costs are down, there is a new helmet that is working nicely that's being developed, software is getting back on track. Yes, it's going to be late, but like everything else that's ever been developed it's beginning to meet goals, and rise to the challenges.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Stealthbomber
 


Clearly that person has never flown in a Chinook.

edit on 25-9-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I'd say sell the entire fleet to pay for our outrageous student loans, and pay (being funny here) for the exhuberant University president's bonuses and salary. This generation will not move forward with such a financial burden on their shoulders.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Stealthbomber
 


Who is going to attack us militarily when we still have a sizable armament of nukes?



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by D_Mason
 


And that has stopped exactly how many wars? That stopped the Soviet Union from shooting down how many US planes during the Cold War (an act that could easily be taken as an act of war)?



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by D_Mason
 


Because we all know that the presence of nuclear weapons will prevent any nation or entity from attacking the United States. You can't possibly believe that. It hasn't stopped development in Korea or Iran of offensive weapons against the United States. The argument of "nuclear weapons to stop attacks" is simply a war mongering ideology honestly - let alone misinformed and dismissive of true techniques and tactics actually used in war since the development of the weapon.




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join