Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

av8r · By: **av8r** On: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:26 pm

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20 ... GECAROUSEL

OWEGO - Lockheed Martin told its employees Monday that it plans to cut about 225 jobs soon with further job reductions likely in the coming months as the Defense Department budget is finalized.
Advertisement

The company had been extensively reviewing its staffing needs since Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced earlier this month a budget plan that calls for an end to the $13 billion VH-71 presidential helicopter program and other programs affecting Lockheed and other defense contractors.

stockingfull · By: **stockingfull** On: Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:30 am

Funny, Bob Gates was picked by Dubya, and it was John McCain himself who pointed out the cost of the Marine One program at the "fiscal responsibility" summit.

So, how is this "Barry's" fault again?

Sorry if it impacts you, but placing the blame where it doesn't belong isn't going to help anything.

Ashcat · By: **Ashcat** On: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:24 pm

stockingfull wrote:Funny, Bob Gates was picked by Dubya, and it was John McCain himself who pointed out the cost of the Marine One program at the "fiscal responsibility" summit.

So, how is this "Barry's" fault again?

Sorry if it impacts you, but placing the blame where it doesn't belong isn't going to help anything.

The defense budget Gates worked under while Bush was President was, ulitmately, Bush's responsibility. The defense budget cuts in question that were announced by Gates earlier this month are, ultimately, Obama's responsibility. McCain lost--remember?--so he has no responsibility for this decision.

Any blame rests squarely on Obama. But the Democrat-controlled Congress, and Obama's domestic apologists, deserve an assist.

samhill · By: **samhill** On: Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:38 pm

I don`t know, if he spends people complain & if he cuts spending some of the same people complain. Me thinks theres a lot more to it.

tvb · By: **tvb** On: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:27 pm

Y'all bitched about the helicopter (which was originally ordered during the Bushco years) when Rush told you to do so. Now you are all bitching about the job losses caused by them canceling the order at your urgings. Make up your mind already. You can't have it both ways.

pvolcko · By: **pvolcko** On: Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:54 am

I don't really care about the Marine One upgrade, didn't care much about losing the updated Howitzer program either. The F-22 cut seems like a very bad move though. Lots of jobs out the door after all the money is already spent on design, prototyping, production manufacturing, training the pilot/crew trainers, shaking out the problems, etc. All the really expensive stuff basically. Finally get to a point where there can be some cost reduction in the whole program on a per plane basis and get cranking out units and they pull the plug. Felt the same way about all the cuts to the Seawolf program back in the 90's.

Sure, there is an F-35 program that can hopefully get rushed into production, but that is still 2-4 years before we get to production units, another 4-8 or so before there are enough to offset the losses from the cut F-22 program (assuming F-35 funding is bumped to compensate not only for the rush, but to cover at least a portion of the unit loses on F-22s that would have been made during the period), to say nothing of training up pilots, logistics and maintenance crews, etc. May not seem like much of a loss or not that big of stretch of time to wait, but its a crazy world and you never know what will come about. I'm sure there are a lot of people that, if events dictate, would rather be going into a mess with a bunch more relatively proven and battle tested F-22s instead of a some first off the line F-35s.

ken · By: **ken** On: Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:16 am

I don't think they need a new fleet. Fix the ones you have. The thing about the 22 is every state had a pc of making something for it. That was alot of jobs. The 35 is a global effort. Bunch of countrys get a pc of making pcs. Then assy in Texas. I say keep the 22 and the jobs.

ErikLaurence · By: **ErikLaurence** On: Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:30 am

pvolcko wrote:I don't really care about the Marine One upgrade, didn't care much about losing the updated Howitzer program either. The F-22 cut seems like a very bad move though. Lots of jobs out the door after all the money is already spent on design, prototyping, production manufacturing, training the pilot/crew trainers, shaking out the problems, etc. All the really expensive stuff basically. Finally get to a point where there can be some cost reduction in the whole program on a per plane basis and get cranking out units and they pull the plug. Felt the same way about all the cuts to the Seawolf program back in the 90's.

Sure, there is an F-35 program that can hopefully get rushed into production, but that is still 2-4 years before we get to production units, another 4-8 or so before there are enough to offset the losses from the cut F-22 program (assuming F-35 funding is bumped to compensate not only for the rush, but to cover at least a portion of the unit loses on F-22s that would have been made during the period), to say nothing of training up pilots, logistics and maintenance crews, etc. May not seem like much of a loss or not that big of stretch of time to wait, but its a crazy world and you never know what will come about. I'm sure there are a lot of people that, if events dictate, would rather be going into a mess with a bunch more relatively proven and battle tested F-22s instead of a some first off the line F-35s.

Do we need a new fighter platform? Is any air force capable of shooting down an F15, F16 or F18 in air to air combat?

How many air to air combat losses did we take in Gulf Wars 1 and 2? I think the answer is zero.

In a world of asymmetrical warfare the air superiority fighter seems archaic.

Richard S. · By: **Richard S.** On: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:26 am

ErikLaurence wrote:Do we need a new fighter platform? Is any air force capable of shooting down an F15, F16 or F18 in air to air combat?
.

Both Russia and China are reportedly developing aircraft similar to the F-22:

The Russsian one according to this wiki article citing a Russian official should be flying in august:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

The PAK FA is intended to replace the MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker in the Russian Air Force; it is scheduled to have its first flight in 2009[2] and enter service with the Russian Air Force. The PAK FA was designed to compete with the USA's F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II, the world's first fifth-generation fighter jets.[3]

Russia is also developing a customized, twin-seater variant[4] of the Sukhoi PAK FA, named Sukhoi/HAL FGFA, with India.[5]

The Chinese one is a little more dubious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-XX

According to the report from Jane's, development of the subsystems, including the engine and weapon suite for the next generation fighter, has been under way for some time. A photograph of a wind tunnel model published with the article showed a twin-engine aircraft with twin tails. The article text mentioned that the aircraft would carry its weapons internally like the F-22 Raptor, and New Scientist called attention to the angular, faceted features of the design, comparing them to the F-117 Nighthawk. Jane's also linked the programme with China's development of an engine with thrust vectoring capability.

The later report in Military Technology featured a picture of a completely different design, speculatively dubbed J-14 and said to be a Shenyang project, with the designations J-12 and J-13 being applied to (possibly competing) designs by Shenyang and Chengdu respectively.

Threats right now? Probaly not but thos aircraft were deigned in the 70's and near EOL. They need to replace them with something soon...

mikeandgerry · By: **mikeandgerry** On: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:26 pm

stockingfull wrote:So, how is this "Barry's" fault again?

Answer:

"Bob" Gates does what he's told to do and say.

mikeandgerry · By: **mikeandgerry** On: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:33 pm

ErikLaurence wrote:
In a world of asymmetrical warfare the air superiority fighter seems archaic.

Sure, until you don't have the air superiority. Then warfare gets symmetrical again, doesn't it?

Let's keep the edge. The ROTW hasn't declared peace.

stockingfull · By: **stockingfull** On: Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:09 pm

mikeandgerry wrote:
stockingfull wrote:So, how is this "Barry's" fault again?

Answer:

"Bob" Gates does what he's told to do and say.

Horsecrap. He can resign any time he wants, and he knows there'll be a big deal made of it by the wingnut right, so he doesn't have to toe the line at all.

But, if the truth really is important to you, you might recall that he said that these were his cuts and were badly needed to prepare for the next generation of our defense, as has been observed here.

mikeandgerry · By: **mikeandgerry** On: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:33 pm

stockingfull wrote:
mikeandgerry wrote:
stockingfull wrote:So, how is this "Barry's" fault again?

Answer:

"Bob" Gates does what he's told to do and say.

Horsecrap. He can resign any time he wants, and he knows there'll be a big deal made of it by the wingnut right, so he doesn't have to toe the line at all.

But, if the truth really is important to you, you might recall that he said that these were his cuts and were badly needed to prepare for the next generation of our defense, as has been observed here.

So you are saying that he doesn't work at the pleasure of the president? Cmon Jon, He's a dedicated career bureaucrat, not a political hack. If Obama says, jump, he asks "how high"?

I don't doubt that certain items need cutting and certain items need building up. I trust Gates to make good decisions at the micro level but, when it comes to the political game it will be Obama's call. I fully expect Obama to gut the military just like Clinton did. Gates will pare it as best he can while retaining as much effectiveness as he can.

Any other analysis of the relationship would be naive.

stockingfull · By: **stockingfull** On: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:54 pm

Naive, my hiney. Bob Gates was President of Texas A&M before he came back to work for Dubya; he could quit for a huge raise any time he wants.

Do his recommendations for defense realignment come over the objection of the President? Of course not. But, if he didn't believe in them, there's nothing to stop him from quitting over it.

And it's "naive" to think otherwise.

ErikLaurence · By: **ErikLaurence** On: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:55 pm

mikeandgerry wrote:
ErikLaurence wrote:
In a world of asymmetrical warfare the air superiority fighter seems archaic.

Sure, until you don't have the air superiority. Then warfare gets symmetrical again, doesn't it?

Let's keep the edge. The ROTW hasn't declared peace.

Do we need $150 million jets when the $30 million jets are still untouchable?

Seems like pork to me.

Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots

Re: Another hit thanks to Barry and his band of merry idiots