If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Romney finally takes a stand on something: Promises to buy hundreds more F-22s, which would run into the billions of USD and sit in a storage shed as they are already becoming obsolete   (wired.com) divider line 147
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

2090 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Sep 2012 at 7:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



147 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-12 06:49:29 AM
Could somebody please tell Romney that Jack Murtha is dead and his favor no longer needs to be curried?
 
2012-09-12 07:08:53 AM
The plan, if you can call it that, is totally possible. But just because a Raptor resurrection is possible doesn't mean it's realistic - let alone a good idea.

You can take out "a Raptor resurrection" and pretty much put in any of Romney's wrongheaded policies and the sentence would still work.

Good template is good.
 
2012-09-12 07:11:26 AM
Is there nobody around Romney, who can tell him that it's not 1982 anymore?

This clown is so far out of touch he's not even in the same decade as everyone else.
 
2012-09-12 07:13:03 AM
Didn't he reference the Soviet Union early on?

Someone get him a copy of Janes, ffs.
 
2012-09-12 07:13:48 AM

quatchi: Good template is good.


Template. Accurate. Good.
 
2012-09-12 07:15:02 AM
Wasn't this a plane that couldn't be used if it was raining?
 
2012-09-12 07:15:42 AM
How else is he going to have our military bravely defend us against the Soviet threat?

This is even worse than the "we have fewer total ships now than WWII, therefore our current navy is obviously outnumbered and outgunned" argument.
 
2012-09-12 07:15:46 AM
Hmmm... Just yesterday people were all like, "the F-15 is all we need" and already the F-22 is obsolete.
 
2012-09-12 07:16:47 AM

clkeagle: How else is he going to have our military bravely defend us against the Soviet threat?

This is even worse than the "we have fewer total ships now than WWII, therefore our current navy is obviously outnumbered and outgunned" argument.


We have more admirals than warships.
 
2012-09-12 07:18:37 AM
Anyway, bringing them back, cutting taxes, and balancing the budget? Nearly impossible to do two of those, completely impossible for all 3.
 
2012-09-12 07:18:57 AM

vygramul: clkeagle: How else is he going to have our military bravely defend us against the Soviet threat?

This is even worse than the "we have fewer total ships now than WWII, therefore our current navy is obviously outnumbered and outgunned" argument.

We have more admirals than warships.


Then it's time to fire some Admirals.
 
2012-09-12 07:23:12 AM

vygramul: We have more admirals than warships.


So, what you're saying is that we've got a bunch of legacy loafers who rose to executive positions and have camped out there for decades? I'd have to do a cost-benefit analysis, but it seems to me that it's time to cut jobs at the management level. We could make the shareholders millions after the cost savings.
 
2012-09-12 07:27:31 AM
"(the old F-22 assembly plant is now building cargo planes)"

Surreal. Maybe I'm getting old or something. It wasn't that long ago the F-22 only existed on the drawing board.
 
2012-09-12 07:27:37 AM

vygramul: We have more admirals than warships.


The DoD could cut its total number of flag officers by 50% and it would have no affect on warfighting ability. None. Zero.

vygramul: Hmmm... Just yesterday people were all like, "the F-15 is all we need" and already the F-22 is obsolete.


The F-15 is a more versatile aircraft, and was designed to be upgraded by DoD maintenance personnel. The F-22 was designed to fight a war that will never happen, was stuck in development hell so long that it literally uses 90s technology, and can't be modified without major contractor support. We would have been better off ordering new-off-the-line F-15s with modernized components than ordering an entirely new airframe.

Our military contracting process is completely broken. Instead of ordering 250+ aircraft up front, why do we not set up option-year contracts at 20 a year? The contract could mandate that new advances be integrated into the aircraft as they are built, and matching upgrades of the previous-years' aircraft could be included. Then each year, you essentially replace the most beat-up fighters one flying unit at a time (accounting for shuffling from USAF to ANG).
 
2012-09-12 07:28:47 AM

vygramul: clkeagle: How else is he going to have our military bravely defend us against the Soviet threat?

This is even worse than the "we have fewer total ships now than WWII, therefore our current navy is obviously outnumbered and outgunned" argument.

We have more admirals than warships.


I hope they don't fire Admiral Chegwidden.
 
2012-09-12 07:30:25 AM
How can a man truly be wrong on everything????

Does he just have a magic ability to look at data and make the wrong decision every time?????
 
2012-09-12 07:30:46 AM
It's good to see the Lockheed Martin pandering this early in the morning.

Maybe Romney can throw a bone to Boeing, and also resurrect the X-32.
 
2012-09-12 07:32:17 AM

T-Servo: It's good to see the Lockheed Martin pandering this early in the morning.

Maybe Romney can throw a bone to Boeing, and also resurrect the X-32.


*looks at the wiki photo*

Wow, the moths are getting huge this year!
 
2012-09-12 07:32:22 AM
Isnt that the plane thats been killing Airforce Pilots ?

"Captain Haney's death unnerved the elite community of F-22 pilots,"

Link

Romneys looking at the market not what the soldiers want.
What a dumbass
 
2012-09-12 07:32:41 AM

vygramul: Hmmm... Just yesterday people were all like, "the F-15 is all we need" and already the F-22 is obsolete.


It is hardly obsolete. It is, however, a boon doggle with huge cost overruns and a very, very poor return on investment......see the reference above about not flying in certain weather conditions.
 
2012-09-12 07:32:53 AM
Sadly he might start to sound sensible to people if our embassies keep burning to the ground.
 
2012-09-12 07:33:04 AM
His entire career has been a long term plan to strap his dog to the roof of a fighter jet.
 
2012-09-12 07:33:59 AM
Remind me again, the F-35 is ALSO stealth capable AND has a VTOL variant (which is ALSO super-sonic capable), right?

Go with the F-35, instead.
 
2012-09-12 07:36:54 AM

Bocasio: Isnt that the plane thats been killing Airforce Pilots ?

"Captain Haney's death unnerved the elite community of F-22 pilots,"

Link

Romneys looking at the market not what the soldiers want.
What a dumbass


Sounds like what a 'CEO' president would do.
 
2012-09-12 07:36:59 AM
The F22 project has some workers in 48 (or 49) states. It is the prefect combination of a useless military project that is hard to kill because every senator likes the money his state gets from it.
 
2012-09-12 07:37:23 AM
He is truly a humanitarian in wanting to preserve military contract personnel. Really, he wants to give back to people who gave so much...
 
2012-09-12 07:38:51 AM

clkeagle: vygramul: We have more admirals than warships.

The DoD could cut its total number of flag officers by 50% and it would have no affect on warfighting ability. None. Zero.

vygramul: Hmmm... Just yesterday people were all like, "the F-15 is all we need" and already the F-22 is obsolete.

The F-15 is a more versatile aircraft, and was designed to be upgraded by DoD maintenance personnel. The F-22 was designed to fight a war that will never happen, was stuck in development hell so long that it literally uses 90s technology, and can't be modified without major contractor support. We would have been better off ordering new-off-the-line F-15s with modernized components than ordering an entirely new airframe.

Our military contracting process is completely broken. Instead of ordering 250+ aircraft up front, why do we not set up option-year contracts at 20 a year? The contract could mandate that new advances be integrated into the aircraft as they are built, and matching upgrades of the previous-years' aircraft could be included. Then each year, you essentially replace the most beat-up fighters one flying unit at a time (accounting for shuffling from USAF to ANG).


And that all overlooks the elephant in the living room - that meat-filled combat aircraft are rapidly becoming obsolete. and the encumbrance of hauling around 200 lbs. of living meat and providing for and protecting it will become an increasing disadvantage. Sadly, in our armed services, "tradition", romance, and ego often overwhelm reason.
 
2012-09-12 07:38:58 AM
Well at least this will represent a good faith gesture towards private small business jobs, built without Obaba fed funds.
 
2012-09-12 07:39:26 AM
Drones and coin aircraft do most of the work now. A few interceptors are all you need.
If war with another superpower comes to pass, I think with lasers and satellite based radar systems will number the days of traditional air power.
Dominance of the sky will be giving way to space. What you want is a more advanced X-37.

/Make one that's manned and reusable with a cheaper booster.
/Its not like the space weapons treaty will matter if WW3 does break out.
/Plus a cheaper shuttle ride is good for the space program. So its not wasted money.
 
2012-09-12 07:39:33 AM

t3knomanser: vygramul: We have more admirals than warships.

So, what you're saying is that we've got a bunch of legacy loafers who rose to executive positions and have camped out there for decades?


No, we just have admirals that are in charge of things other than ships. Also, the initial assertion is false:

[from teh wiki]U.S. Code of law explicitly limits the total number of four-star admirals that may be on active duty at any given time. The total number of active duty flag officers is capped at 160 for the Navy.[2] For the Army, Navy, and Air Force, no more than about 25% of the service's active duty general or flag officers may have more than two stars,[3] and statute sets the total number of four-star officers allowed in each service.[3] This is set at 6 four-star Navy admirals.[3]

286 warships, give or take a few depending on recent commissions/decomissions.
 
2012-09-12 07:43:56 AM

DarnoKonrad: Sadly he might start to sound sensible to people if our embassies keep burning to the ground.


What exactly do you think an F22 is going to do against an angry urban mob that a drone couldn't do cheaper and better?
 
2012-09-12 07:45:23 AM

clkeagle: The DoD could cut its total number of flag officers by 50% and it would have no affect on warfighting ability. None. Zero.


Sure it would... each of those flag officers would have to sign twice as much paperwork that they didn't bother reading! That would have a major impact on their golf handicap. Oh, you said warfighting ability? Sorry, right you are, carry on then.
 
2012-09-12 07:50:50 AM
Romney sure is focused on gaining those votes from people who would never vote for Obama. He could focus on the few undecided, but I suppose promising single payer health care just isn't realistic.
 
2012-09-12 07:56:29 AM

incendi: U.S. Code of law explicitly limits the total number of four-star admirals that may be on active duty at any given time.


Oh, I understand now- job killing regulations prohibit people from rising up to the management level. Why does the Military hate America?
 
2012-09-12 07:56:58 AM

LarryDan43: Romney sure is focused on gaining those votes from people who would never vote for Obama. He could focus on the few undecided, but I suppose promising single payer health care just isn't realistic.


That is an interesting question. If he completely Romneyed his positions and started supporting single payer health, higher taxes on the wealthy and seperation of church and state could Republicans unnominate him?
 
2012-09-12 07:59:34 AM

MacEnvy: DarnoKonrad: Sadly he might start to sound sensible to people if our embassies keep burning to the ground.

What exactly do you think an F22 is going to do against an angry urban mob that a drone couldn't do cheaper and better?


Angry nations with money might buy advanced Migs.
Those jets could cause a serious problem for our allies, who are mostly using gen 4.5 fighters and may become outnumbered.

If you take a handful of F-22's and spread them around the world, their numbers become pretty thin.

/I just think we are so close to the end of the fighter era, we can limp along until we have something better.
 
2012-09-12 08:01:57 AM

MacEnvy: DarnoKonrad: Sadly he might start to sound sensible to people if our embassies keep burning to the ground.

What exactly do you think an F22 is going to do against an angry urban mob that a drone couldn't do cheaper and better?


Nothing. You think people are logical?
 
2012-09-12 08:05:01 AM

Smoking GNU: Remind me again, the F-35 is ALSO stealth capable AND has a VTOL variant (which is ALSO super-sonic capable), right?

Go with the F-35, instead.


Except Obama already supports the F-35, so agreeing would go against the anti-anything-Obama-does platform of the GOP.
 
2012-09-12 08:07:45 AM
Romney also promises to increase defense spending by 20%, because lord knows we need to justify those cuts to public education one way or another.
 
2012-09-12 08:10:22 AM

clkeagle: vygramul: We have more admirals than warships.

The DoD could cut its total number of flag officers by 50% and it would have no affect on warfighting ability. None. Zero.


I never looked at the problem, so I can't say one way or another. But a lot of shore facilities are headed up by admirals, and should be.

vygramul: Hmmm... Just yesterday people were all like, "the F-15 is all we need" and already the F-22 is obsolete.

The F-15 is a more versatile aircraft, and was designed to be upgraded by DoD maintenance personnel. The F-22 was designed to fight a war that will never happen, was stuck in development hell so long that it literally uses 90s technology, and can't be modified without major contractor support. We would have been better off ordering new-off-the-line F-15s with modernized components than ordering an entirely new airframe.

Our military contracting process is completely broken. Instead of ordering 250+ aircraft up front, why do we not set up option-year contracts at 20 a year? The contract could mandate that new advances be integrated into the aircraft as they are built, and matching upgrades of the previous-years' aircraft could be included. Then each year, you essentially replace the most beat-up fighters one flying unit at a time (accounting for shuffling from USAF to ANG).


I live with a former professor of the US Naval War College. An F-15 driver said that you can take a mediocre pilot and put him in an F-15 and he'll be a superstar. It wipes the floor with the F-15. (Yes, the F-15 is Air Force. Believe it or not, the branches do send people to each others' facilities for a variety of reasons.)

But our contracting process is a nightmare, largely because we aim for anti-corruption more than efficiency. I had to live there for a while when I was an analyst for the Navy. I never want to be there again, and my total respect to anyone working in that field. Yow.
 
2012-09-12 08:10:47 AM
As president, I promise to set up a global system of lasers that can shoot down ICBMs, and build a hands-off doomsday device that will activate if and when a nuclear missile detonates on U.S. soil.
 
2012-09-12 08:11:01 AM
What the fark are we buying jets for anyway? Our enemy is hiding in caves.
 
2012-09-12 08:17:23 AM

CPennypacker: What the fark are we buying jets for anyway? Our enemy is hiding in caves.


Consistent with his theme of being stuck in the past in everything from comedians to foreign powers, Romney's favourite videogame is Descent.
 
2012-09-12 08:18:31 AM
He has also pledged to bring back those Flying Fortresses all the kids are talking about.
 
2012-09-12 08:23:25 AM
F-22 and F-35 are only viable because of the AF's "no casualties" mind-set.

Accept that in war you're going to lose some pilots, and a platform like the F-15 makes much more sense. F-15 with 2012 avionics and weapons systems would be a real killer.

Better yet, go drone. The fetish with pilots is really holding us back.
 
2012-09-12 08:24:39 AM

Alphax: Wasn't this a plane that couldn't be used if it was raining?


It's actually an amazing piece of technology and those issues were overstated, and mostly resolved.

What's dumb is it's role. When was the last time we had trouble winning the Air Superiority phase again? 1943?

It's an AS fighter jet designed for the post-cold-war world in which we were still convinced that Russia was gonna proxy all it's MiGs and nukes into the Bloc and fark us sideways from all over the world.

That never happened. Gimme more drones any day.
 
2012-09-12 08:26:50 AM
Republican psychologic: weaponized Keynesianism - the belief that government spending is important to create jobs, but only if that spending goes to defense contractors to build worthless weapons that will pile up in sheds and never be used. Keynesian projects that improve the national infrastructure are wasteful spending, and the people hired under them are just de facto welfare recipients.
 
2012-09-12 08:27:20 AM

Alphax: Wasn't this a plane that couldn't be used if it was raining?


Yes. Originally rain actually damaged the stealth coating, while later it simply damaged electronics.
 
2012-09-12 08:28:02 AM

Turbo Cojones: F-22 and F-35 are only viable because of the AF's "no casualties" mind-set.

Accept that in war you're going to lose some pilots, and a platform like the F-15 makes much more sense. F-15 with 2012 avionics and weapons systems would be a real killer.

Better yet, go drone. The fetish with pilots is really holding us back.


Also this. Our planes don't need to be faster, more maneuverable, tougher to shoot down, covered in countermeasures from nose to tail or capable of going to farking space. They need to be one of those things and our pilots need to be trained to use that thing. And yeah, drones solve the issue of casualties just as well. Not gonna shoot down a JSF with a drone, but ... who cares?
 
2012-09-12 08:29:22 AM
I read something the other, day, maybe even on Fark, about how some in the military think that all we need are B-52s, F-15s and C-130s. Basically the bomber can carry missiles and even drones, the F-15s, as many have stated, can be modified and are low maintenance, and the C-130s are versatile for cargo - shorter range, but can land just about anywhere.

And, drones! As much as I hate the fact that they will probably be used by police, they seem to work pretty well for the military.
 
Displayed 50 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report