US Senate votes to kill Starscream

Chat about stuff other than Transformers.
User avatar
Clay
Posts: 7209
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:19 am
Location: Murray, KY

Post by Clay »

Springer007 wrote:Well he can "rein" in spending when it comes to some things but not when it comes to bailouts of banks and lobbyists. Way to go Nobama.... I predict something will happen and we'll be crying for the use of state of the art air craft and/or weaponry, and when our other weapons are falling apart that we use at this current moment due to cutbacks, then what will we fight with, rocks? I'd rather see alot of spending go to defense, education, roads, renewable energies and NOT foreign aid. I bet no one in the news talks about the net amount the U.S. gives away to foreign countries to be our "fwiend" (notice my cutesy and sarcastic way of saying friend). But this is why I quit watching news and started reading books that cite sources that I can actually check up on.
Huh?

McCain, that guy that ran against Obama (remember him?), said this
Republican Senator John McCain said it was more important to rein in unnecessary spending at a time when the country is amassing a record $1.8 trillion budget deficit.

McCain, Obama's rival in the 2008 presidential contest, said the president deserved credit for "being very firm on this issue" and described the vote as a "big victory for the American taxpayer."
in the article that I linked to at the top of the thread. The F22 getting the axe would have happened no matter who was elected, so this is an entirely non-partisan issue.
User avatar
Halfshell
Posts: 19167
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Don't complain to me. I don't care.
Contact:

Post by Halfshell »

Clay wrote:entirely non-partisan issue.
DOES NOT COMPUTE.

MUST BLAME IT ON GOVERNMENT!

MUST FIND AMMUNITION TO SUPPORT MY OWN POLITICAL VIEW!

MUST... MUST... MUST... DESTINEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

*explodes*
User avatar
inflatable dalek
Posts: 24000
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: Kidderminster UK

Post by inflatable dalek »

We all know Obama Bin Laden is just a terrorist non American stooge out to destroy the US military from within so his swarthy friends can defeat the old and rickety F15's with their pointy sticks. And it's all the fault of the weak willed limp wristed lefty liberals!
User avatar
snavej
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:14 pm
Location: London, U.K.

Post by snavej »

When I read the top of this thread, I thought that maybe the U.S. Senate building can transform into a giant robot capable of destroying Starscream. Black budget spending!
User avatar
Heinrad
Posts: 6281
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2001 5:00 am
Location: Riskin' it all on my Russian Roulette!

Post by Heinrad »

To allay some of Springer's fears(oh, come on, one of us has to....)

The Raptors that currently exist aren't going to be scrapped, they just aren't going to order any new ones, and any that had been pre-ordered, but construction hadn't been started on, simply won't be built. And unless they outsourced the airframe construction to some teeny-weeny company off the coast of Diego Garcia whose only source of materials is bicycle clips made out of paper clips, the odds are good that the Raptors that are in service now won't start showing serious signs of wear until the mid-2020s.

Of course, that assumes that the USSR is indeed playing possum, or we go to war with France, Germany, Sweden, or any country that actually has an air force. If we don't, the Raptor airframe could last for a hundred years.

And as for parts, I'm sure the DOD has signed all of the pertinent service contracts. Meaning that if a Raptor does break down, it'll be us taxpayers who pay for them to ship it back to the factory(thing weighs, what, 20 tons? Imagine the shipping and handling on that....), only to be told that that part is no longer under warranty. Then they'll ship it back, postage due.
As a professional tanuki (I'm a Japanese mythological animal, and a good luck charm), I have an alarm clock built into me somewhere. I also look like a stuffed animal. And you thought your life was tough......

3DS Friend Code: 1092-1274-7642
User avatar
Springer007
Posts: 1162
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: Fort Smith, Arkansas
Contact:

Post by Springer007 »

Clay wrote:Huh?

McCain, that guy that ran against Obama (remember him?), said this



in the article that I linked to at the top of the thread. The F22 getting the axe would have happened no matter who was elected, so this is an entirely non-partisan issue.
True. It would have happened regardless, but why create something and develop for the latter parts of the 20th century, put it into play in the 21st century, then scrap it? To me that is a bigger waste of money, that and the 23+ billion the United States already gives to foreign countries for foreign aid (looked the ball park figure up on some random Democracy news site, and that was the best figure I could find for that figure). I just hope the frame is that sturdy and wasn't made of cheap materials.

My main beef with my former employer is this: we have the f-15's, which are a beautifully designed air craft, but as of late they were falling apart due to a lack of parts to fix them with. So someone in the DoD is either not procuring the parts, or they just don't care. And alas, I think it is both options. And I would be afraid this big investment in defense funding would go down the tubes if the parts aren't readily available. Remember, our elected officials aren't as smart as they lead us on to be when it comes to reading a piece of legislation, or any other document for that matter.

p.s.

If someone can get the actual figure for foreign aid spending, please post it for me so I can use that piece of information for other debates.
"Fear denies faith. And for the Immortal Emperor!"

-Space Marines
User avatar
inflatable dalek
Posts: 24000
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: Kidderminster UK

Post by inflatable dalek »

Springer007 wrote:True. It would have happened regardless, but why create something and develop for the latter parts of the 20th century, put it into play in the 21st century, then scrap it?
They're not scrapping it. All F22 currently in service are staying so and no doubt the US Government will get their monies worth out of them. Not building anymore for the time being doesn't= Destroy them all. But I think someone explained that didn't they?
To me that is a bigger waste of money, that and the 23+ billion the United States already gives to foreign countries for foreign aid (looked the ball park figure up on some random Democracy news site, and that was the best figure I could find for that figure). I just hope the frame is that sturdy and wasn't made of cheap materials.
So you think 23 Billion helping the world's poorest people is a bigger waste of money that 60 odd billion on bigger and better weapons when your contry is already so far ahead of the competition they're out of sight? Not to mention that every time in the last 50 years the US has been handed their arses it's not been by those with better firepowere, but those with better local knowledge who aren't afraid to get down and dirty.

[As this has moved into shooting ducks in a barrel political discussion anyone object if I move it into GD?]
User avatar
SenahBirdR
Protoform
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Underneath a rainy tree, Oregon

Post by SenahBirdR »

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004800.html

An interesting opinion on the subject there. Basically, the original plans for an F22 fleet was intended to counter a future (from the 1980s perspective) in which Chinese and Soviet air threats would be a consistent menace that we actually fought over the next few decades. That never happened. Over twenty years later and air to air combat has decreased. Not only that, but an advanced fighter to advanced fighter ratio considering us taking on any reasonable enemy by 1980s standards on top of current standards would have put us at something like 20 advanced jets to each one these theoretical enemies have actually produced. The plan being scaled back gave us 10 to 1 superiority. The newest cuts places us at approximately 5 to 1. If we went to war with Russia, China and a plethora of their allies at the same time. Before we started to hit an "Oh $#!+ we are short equiped!" moment we would have to be at war with those two the UK and Israel. At once. Also bringing no allies on our side.

Keep in mind this scale back to the actual realities of modern warfare also includes an upgrade in the programs of other aircraft we more often use. Aircraft that is needed in the specific type of situations we have been facing the past decade and expect to see more of. The Navy is a very important part of our air superiority, and their priorities run along different lines. Lastly, the F22 is not the only aircraft replacing current functions of the F15. The F15 was so successful that its scope of usage was expanded beyond the original intent. Some of those expanded mission profiles are being shunted off to various UAV programs, especially non-combat domestic emergencies. The F15E models are actually performing quite well due to less previous usage. Do we REALLY need advanced fighter jets of such caliber in domestic firefighting and S&R missions at all times? They are certainly useful yet oftentimes a helicopter comes in more handy. Or an unarmed Predator.

My personal opinion, I would rather see a more robust overal air fleet with various specialized vehicles in useful numbers completmented by our very versatile multi use jets than an air fleet composed primarily of expensive overkill versatile jets that do not perform as well in actual situations we usually face when compared to the specialized equipment.

Unless the Congress actually has to plan on killing Starscream or other Seekers I am comfortable with halting production of our very new and barely used jets. The 187 we will have built will serve fine as long as we are willing to replace those we lose to attrition. Any war we can reasonable conceive of entering into during the next decade still leaves us with an over whelming air superiority. If the return of air to air jet combat as a deciding factor happens we will be on good ground and have ample time to reverse the current strategy.

Just my opinions.
User avatar
snavej
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:14 pm
Location: London, U.K.

Post by snavej »

As Springer007 alluded to, this military cutback is probably connected to Obama's plans for public-funded healthcare for Americans without health cover. That's going to be a big financial drain. If they make progress in combatting some health problems, people will start suffering from other health problems, so then spending never seems to drop. That's the situation in the UK, at least.
User avatar
Springer007
Posts: 1162
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: Fort Smith, Arkansas
Contact:

Post by Springer007 »

The main problem with foreign aid I see is this: does that money ACTUALLY get to the people. We found out, with the UN, that Kofi Anan's son was stealing money for such programs that are similar to our foreign aid. We see in Somalia that the warlords are still taking food, money, etc. from the people, thus the people in a way becoming pirates in order to survive. If the money would actually get to the people, then I would have no problem, but foreign relations has to stop in my view because there are poor and hungry here in America that could use that. It's sad that I drive by Garrison avenue and see U.S. citizens sleeping in boxes, on street corners, or anywhere. And yet where is Nobama for them truthfully? They may have the Homeless shelters, but 23 billion would be better spent on them and the police forces also. Next point, in the state I live, they are actually having to lay off police officers because of lack of funding. It is a sick world when a city of 75 thousand or more and then a state of at least 2-3 million doesn't have enough police officers in which to uphold the law and peace. And lastly our roads are in shambles, not just in where I live, but everywhere else that doesn't have the funds to still carry out road construction. Then the last issue is education where our young people are being taught to not memorize information, but to just gloss over it, then they deem it a "new learning".

My last and final point in scrapping a project is this: I know in the heat of the moment I meant scrapping as to get rid of, and it is great we may use these jets as an elite force and all, but in the event where we might have to fight an enemy with no constraints on weapons, we will really need these air craft in order to perform the job. I am just going through worst case scenarios where if we have the weapons, and not need them, it is better than needing them and not having them.
"Fear denies faith. And for the Immortal Emperor!"

-Space Marines
Cliffjumper
Posts: 32206
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 5:00 am

Post by Cliffjumper »

Springer007 wrote:but in the event where we might have to fight an enemy with no constraints on weapons
What we talking here? Martians? Decepticons? Wizards?
User avatar
Notabot
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:15 am
Location: Lowden, IA

Post by Notabot »

This is why we need the Raptor! (Skip to 5:10 if you're impatient, but worth the full view.)
Those Washington namby pambies "would never shoot nuclear weapons at Decepticons".
User avatar
Dead Man Wade
Posts: 4890
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:15 pm
Location: Funny location

Post by Dead Man Wade »

snavej wrote:As Springer007 alluded to, this military cutback is probably connected to Obama's plans for public-funded healthcare for Americans without health cover. That's going to be a big financial drain. If they make progress in combatting some health problems, people will start suffering from other health problems, so then spending never seems to drop. That's the situation in the UK, at least.
Let's be clear on something, though. The Obama plan (as I understand it) is simply to create a cheap (not free) alternative to the HMOs. By giving the HMOs their first real competition in years, it drives the prices down, making health care more affordable for everyone.
User avatar
inflatable dalek
Posts: 24000
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: Kidderminster UK

Post by inflatable dalek »

So where's the citation that the money saved here will be spent on foreign aid? The original link only mentions the cuts. They could presumably spend the money on the police and homeless that springer wants. Or on a really fancy swivel chair for the oval office. We just don't know.And I would also hope that by this stage all charities and western powers have learnt their lesson about throwing money at poor countries with corrupt governments without provisos and checks on what's done with the cash.

I also can't see the logic in "Well, if we spent money on a decent health care system people will just die of different things later on so if we just let them die now we'll save money in the long run".

And his name's spelt Obama. Anyone wanting to be taking seriously as a political commentator should probably watch those typos/cutsie nicknames. I mean, no one would pay any attention to a Revenge of the Fallen review that harped on about Michael Gay.
User avatar
SenahBirdR
Protoform
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Underneath a rainy tree, Oregon

Post by SenahBirdR »

A great clip. I love that.

As for the issue of not enough Raptors. Seriously? What situations are we talking about here? The US goes to war with the rest of the world. Alien invasion. Secret army of robots hidden beneath the Earth's surface. Atlantis rising. A few dozen Godzillas. Ragnarok. Reign of Fire coming true. If we are talking about Russia and China forming an alliance and trying to build their own fleet of advanced fighter jets we have about 20 years if they devote massive resources towards the project before we'd actually be threatened for air superiority. Sure, if criminals can start building F15 knockoffs in their backyards for a few hundred dollars we would have something to worry about.

I'm just not seeing any reasonable threat that we need any more than our current compliment of Raptors for. If we build too many we are likely to do the same thing as we did when we built too many F15s. Use them for military ran non-military goals. Guess what happened? We over extended the F15 fleet doing that. Seriously, we use F15s in domestic disaster relief operations as well as other situations. If you were in a non-combat situation that the military had to come save your butt, which would you rather see... a single F-22 Raptor or thirty-four UH-60 Black Hawks. That is the approximate cost difference. Guess which is actually more useful in a more missions?

I agree with keeping above the minimum necessary levels. A cushion for attrition and the inevitable unknown situations that will arise. It is just overkill to make huge numbers of the F22 to use in every type of aerial mission. Its like buying a half dozen 62" 1080p Monitors and the eqiupment necessary to make it portable so you have a better screen to play your PSP on where ever you go. The TV is nice for your home, or for your office... maybe even your RV but serious overkill and overcost for the benefit in most other situations.
User avatar
Springer007
Posts: 1162
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: Fort Smith, Arkansas
Contact:

Post by Springer007 »

inflatable dalek wrote:So where's the citation that the money saved here will be spent on foreign aid? The original link only mentions the cuts. They could presumably spend the money on the police and homeless that springer wants. Or on a really fancy swivel chair for the oval office. We just don't know.And I would also hope that by this stage all charities and western powers have learnt their lesson about throwing money at poor countries with corrupt governments without provisos and checks on what's done with the cash.

I also can't see the logic in "Well, if we spent money on a decent health care system people will just die of different things later on so if we just let them die now we'll save money in the long run".

And his name's spelt Obama. Anyone wanting to be taking seriously as a political commentator should probably watch those typos/cutsie nicknames. I mean, no one would pay any attention to a Revenge of the Fallen review that harped on about Michael Gay.
Good point on the cutesy nicknames, I apologize sincerely for it. I just don't want things like health care or future defense spending, etc. rushed through with out real serious thought first. We are paying our leaders to read and to lead and do what we tell them to do. I don't want a bill that is 1000 pages that might be filled with a lot of payback to lobbyists and other people who make no hill of beans when all they do is get someone elected by putting their money behind the candidates through the election process, or some other trivial matters. I see the health care thing as a good thing, but only if we the people get to pick our doctors and aren't dictated to when we go and visit them for a pending checkup. I've went through that once, and I won't go through that crap again (aka Tricare at Lackland AFB, Texas).
"Fear denies faith. And for the Immortal Emperor!"

-Space Marines
User avatar
inflatable dalek
Posts: 24000
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: Kidderminster UK

Post by inflatable dalek »

Springer007 wrote:Good point on the cutesy nicknames, I apologize sincerely for it. I just don't want things like health care or future defense spending, etc. rushed through with out real serious thought first.
They have given the defence cuts serious thought. As no country on Earth can currnetly fight the USA in the air they make sense. And indeed, they're still giving them thought as- at least according to the article- there's still at least one more stage of government for them to go through. I'm sure the health care changes have similar if not larger levels to go through as well.

Though if you don't want things to be rushed through to quickly why are you berating Obama for not having sorted out the homeless/police/state of the nation already, not even a full year into his tenure? Most of America's current problems can still be laid at the feet of the preceeding government. If there's no change or things are worse by next July then you can throw the blame at him.
User avatar
Springer007
Posts: 1162
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: Fort Smith, Arkansas
Contact:

Post by Springer007 »

Don't worry, I pretty much blame the presidents going all the way back to Carter and before him for what we are in. We really should have been cleaning junk up at home rather than going abroad and being the world police, and meddling in other countries' affairs. Mr. Roosevelt, pre WW2 had the right idea of staying out of the affairs of the world and just concentrating on getting ourselves out of the self inflicted mess we were in at the time. But look how that turned out sadly, at least according to the history books and what we are taught to belive. And that is the stance we need to take today, even with the crap that goes on behind the scenes. I don't agree in being in Iraq or Afghanistan or other people's homes for that matter. Look at that HUGE fortress embassy the we built, I didn't know we were going to install a castle into the region! That wastes money, even if we gain knowledge of different sorts of fighting i.e. urban and guerrilla warfare. I've learned to just turn the t.v. off because hearing about the stupidities of our leaders at home and abroad, and the wasteful spending everywhere is just depressing and gives me a migraine after awhile.
"Fear denies faith. And for the Immortal Emperor!"

-Space Marines
User avatar
Vin Ghostal
Posts: 5972
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2000 12:20 am
Location: Making his summer residence in Alexandria, VA
Contact:

Post by Vin Ghostal »

Springer007 wrote:Don't worry, I pretty much blame the presidents going all the way back to Carter and before him for what we are in.
Yeah! **** Clinton and his incredible budget surpluses and the biggest peacetime growth for America in the country's history! He's to blame, somehow...
Image
User avatar
inflatable dalek
Posts: 24000
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: Kidderminster UK

Post by inflatable dalek »

Of course Clinton's to blame. He had a blow job outside of marriage. No politician has ever done that and turned out to be good at his job.
Post Reply