Department of Defense Killing the F-22 Raptor

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Optimus1986, Apr 6, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Optimus1986

    Optimus1986 TMNT & Hulk Fanatic

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Posts:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +0
  2. Bryan

    Bryan ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Posts:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    I like that the Secretary of Defense, who makes these decisions to a large degree, is "this guy."
     
  3. Cloud Strife

    Cloud Strife 01000011 01000101 0101010

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Posts:
    1,178
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +0
    o goody, that means when another attack on us soil happens, we won't have the firepower to fight back! can't have anything nice!!!
     
  4. KidDynamite

    KidDynamite don't know nothing Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Posts:
    15,627
    Trophy Points:
    296
    Likes:
    +0
    What the hell? 95,000 jobs are at stake if they stop building new F-22s? There's a joke about screwing in a lightbulb in there somewhere.
     
  5. Lance Halberd

    Lance Halberd oh hai

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Posts:
    5,780
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +3
    Yeah, it's a shame we don't have any other fighter planes or anything.
     
  6. smkspy

    smkspy is one nice fucking kitty

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Posts:
    20,315
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +78
    Boy, this thread gonna fail on so many levels.

    :popcorn 
     
  7. Soundblaster1

    Soundblaster1 The Heisenberg of Toys

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Posts:
    13,996
    News Credits:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Likes:
    +11
    I'd venture a guess to say all those jobs aren't directly related to the F-22 projects, but rather related to cutbacks the company would have to make if they weren't given the government contracts (aka money).
     
  8. Gen. Magnus

    Gen. Magnus Everything is Awesome

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Posts:
    6,835
    News Credits:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ, USA
    Likes:
    +12
    Nor will we have the F-35s that will be getting increased spending (per the article).
     
  9. Tekkaman Blade

    Tekkaman Blade Professor of Animation

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Posts:
    21,954
    News Credits:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Location:
    Georgia
    Likes:
    +157
    I understand they want more F35's and speedier boats. And it's not like they are going to dismantle the old ones, just not make new ones. Once the economy stablizes more they may make new planes.
     
  10. Bryan

    Bryan ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Posts:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    I think you're probably spot on--hell, depending on who wrote the article, they might be arguing that the restaurants near the factories will have to close down, costing those jobs also, and so on and so on.
     
  11. Nutcrusher

    Nutcrusher Decepticon

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Posts:
    1,228
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +4
    This is critical. Everything depends on whether or not Russia and China are continuing with the development of their versions of the Fifth Gen Fighters.


    Russia and China showed very clearly recently that they are still sympathetic to North Korean government, as alarmist as it sounds. The arms war fueled on by the Cold War were never went away, and it will never end. Military superiority is not just symbolic. It keeps nations from attacking each other.
     
  12. Vexza

    Vexza Nerdicon

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Posts:
    2,732
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +0
    Starscream does not approve.

    [​IMG]

    Rawr.
     
  13. cheetorBWORG

    cheetorBWORG Cheetor Fan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Posts:
    4,560
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +1
    I have an idea. Why don't all of the countries in the world scrap their militaries? It sure would help the economy AND keep the peace.

    And no, I'm not kidding.
     
  14. Bryan

    Bryan ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Posts:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    Except it wouldn't accomplish either of those things. Or at least that's what history suggests.
     
  15. EvaUnit13

    EvaUnit13 REBUILD

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Posts:
    4,182
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +0
    Hahahahahaha
     
  16. Gigatron_2005

    Gigatron_2005 President of Calendars

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Posts:
    7,871
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Likes:
    +1
    Good. Cold war level spending was both unnecessary and retarded. However here it looks like they're just shifting spending; hopefully they can spend the money in a more useful way.



    Thats no good dude. How are we going to fight off alien invaders from outer space without our jets and tanks? (it might be better than nothing)
     
  17. comaface

    comaface Crush, kill, destroy

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Posts:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +0
    Or the 187 F-22s that are still budgeted for, per the article.
     
  18. Aaron

    Aaron Master of Crystalocution Moderator Content Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    21,680
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    307
    Likes:
    +1
    Twitter:
    The headline contridicts the story. Headline says the program is killed, body says that they are only building the ones currently budgeted for.

    YAY for Journalism.
     
  19. Bryan

    Bryan ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Posts:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    Well, in retrospect, yeah, it's kinda easy to Monday morning quarterback our leadership and their decisions back then. But it's hard to argue that we went from a genuine belief that we were facing mutually assured destruction to a virtually bloodless conclusion to the Cold War.

    I think there's a solid argument to be made that our spending levels then were a part of that.

    Conversely, yeah, I agree that continuing them afterward was indeed unnecessary and...well, I'll pass on "retarded." But DoD funding was cut by something like a third towards the end of Bush I's Presidency.
     
  20. Gigatron_2005

    Gigatron_2005 President of Calendars

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Posts:
    7,871
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Likes:
    +1
    Well, both sides realized pretty quickly that use of nukes would be their own death warrant. I have no idea at what point that became apparent though. Still cant help but feel that the spending was a waste. Oh well, on the plus side we got space exploration and quite a few modern technologies. Guess I shouldn't complain too much. :p 
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page