Goodbye F/A-22!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to scrap
its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq (news -
web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
Services Committee, said on Sunday.

"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having
had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican said
on NBC's "Meet the Press."

McCain said both the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps must be expanded
overall, a position at odds with President Bush (news - web sites)'s
administration. The United States has about 135,000 troops in Iraq, a
number that McCain, an influential member of the Armed Services
Committee, said must rise.

As part of a broad overhaul of U.S. priorities, he said, the Pentagon
may have to scrap the $71 billion Air Force program to buy F/A-22
air-to-air fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp. .

"We may have to cancel this airplane that's going to cost between $250
million and $300 million a copy," said McCain, floating what could
become a major new legislative hurdle to a top Air Force priority.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...sa_mccain_dc_2

noname wrote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to
scrap
its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq (news
-
web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
Services Committee, said on Sunday.

McCain has been saying stuff like this for a few years. Doesn't mean it's
actually going to happen.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:25:10 +0300, noname wrote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to scrap
its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq (news -
web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
Services Committee, said on Sunday.

"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having
had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican said
on NBC's "Meet the Press."


But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
the field and we're right".

The thing that is truely disgusting about the whole thing (the war) is
that the terrorists are right. Bloody us a little and we run home
like a little Chihuahua who got it's ass handed to it by a hamster.
Granted it's just a CNN poll but one the other day showed the majority
of those taking the vote thought we ought to withdraw from Iraq and
today's majority 68% say we shouldn't be in Iraq. No doubt the
terrorists are reading the same polls with glee. F----ing sickening.


What the hell does it take people before you'll stand up for what's
right instead of running home to hide under the blankets and hoping
the boogey man won't come to call?


No doubt that same majority will vote Kerry in come November thinking
that somehow everything will be better. Well we'll deserve everything
that comes of it. (rant over. ndtwemdaaatdwtft)

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:25:10 +0300, noname wrote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to scrap
its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq (news -
web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
Services Committee, said on Sunday.

"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having
had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican said
on NBC's "Meet the Press."


But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
the field and we're right".

Perhaps what you wrote can be formed into the F-22 motto, Ferrin. The
fighter mafia really screwed the pooch on this one. Being split across the
2000 production break did not help either. The whole F-22 mess has been
like watching a man play soliare with a deck of 51.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:21:09 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:25:10 +0300, noname wrote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to scrap
its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq (news -
web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
Services Committee, said on Sunday.

"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having
had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican said
on NBC's "Meet the Press."


But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
the field and we're right".

Perhaps what you wrote can be formed into the F-22 motto, Ferrin. The
fighter mafia really screwed the pooch on this one. Being split across the
2000 production break did not help either. The whole F-22 mess has been
like watching a man play soliare with a deck of 51.


You are SO predictable.

"rant over. ndtwemdaaatdwtft"

No Doubt Tarver Will Eqaute My Disgust At Average Americans To
Disapopointment With The F-22 Thing.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:21:09 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:25:10 +0300, noname wrote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to
scrap
its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq
(news -
web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
Services Committee, said on Sunday.

"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having
had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican
said
on NBC's "Meet the Press."


But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
the field and we're right".

Perhaps what you wrote can be formed into the F-22 motto, Ferrin. The
fighter mafia really screwed the pooch on this one. Being split across
the
2000 production break did not help either. The whole F-22 mess has been
like watching a man play soliare with a deck of 51.


You are SO predictable.

The unified wave therom and probabilities is my game.

Reliability - Availability - Revenue

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:32:38 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:21:09 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:25:10 +0300, noname wrote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to
scrap
its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq
(news -
web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
Services Committee, said on Sunday.

"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having
had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican
said
on NBC's "Meet the Press."


But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
the field and we're right".

Perhaps what you wrote can be formed into the F-22 motto, Ferrin. The
fighter mafia really screwed the pooch on this one. Being split across
the
2000 production break did not help either. The whole F-22 mess has been
like watching a man play soliare with a deck of 51.


You are SO predictable.

The unified wave therom and probabilities is my game.

Reliability - Availability - Revenue



Pavlov made a dog drooling predictable so is your response suppose to
impress me?


I'll conceed one one point with a qualifier. Our ongoing fued hasn't
ever been WOULD the F-22 be cancelled but SHOULD it. That being said,
I still maintain (as does the USAF) that the F-22 is the best of the
available choices. The F-22 as an aircraft that is. As a *program*
meaning mainly the the way it's being managed, funded, scheduled etc.
it looks to have all the finesse of a monkey trying to **** a
football. I hope for the sake of the pilots who'll have to fight that
we get it but who knows what will happen.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
the field and we're right".

The thing that is truely disgusting about the whole thing (the war) is
that the terrorists are right. Bloody us a little and we run home
like a little Chihuahua who got it's ass handed to it by a hamster.
Granted it's just a CNN poll but one the other day showed the majority
of those taking the vote thought we ought to withdraw from Iraq and
today's majority 68% say we shouldn't be in Iraq.

It's part of how media works these days - when there is no major news, minor
news are reported as major news, and things in public can get blown out of
proportions.

Bit of a same is going on with F-22. Although the program has seen some
difficulties, I've never thought there was much real ground to cancel it,
but some people have speculated about it or pushing for it for years and
after much repetition, message has been going through...will be
psychologically interesting to see whether the opponents of the program
really do prevail.

But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
the field and we're right".

I'm inclined to agree. I think there is no real concept of what the
transformed military will look like, only that it will manage and share
information better ... maybe.

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
the field and we're right".

I'm inclined to agree. I think there is no real concept of what the
transformed military will look like, only that it will manage and share
information better ... maybe.

While I hate the overuse of the word, there is plenty of merit to the
concept, and the increased quality, scope, and distribution of information
as it applies to situational awareness is not only of great future promise,
but is also yielding benefits *now*. Examples of systems in current use
abound, from the USMC's datalinking of its AV-8B's Lightning targeting pod
imagery to ground combat HQ's during OIF to the use of digital C3I systems
in Army maneuver units up through the corps level and down through (at
present) the BTF or BCT levels. I have no doubt whatsoever that we are
better at desseminating information more rapidly today to the military
commanders who have to make decisions at all levels than we were ten years
ago. In 1996 I participated in my first division level Warfighter exercise,
and we were doing everything pretty much the same we had for the last thirty
or fourty years in terms of battle tracking; but by 1999 and 2000, when that
same division performed back-to-back corps level WFX's, we were utilizing
digital command and control packages that really did improve our SA, and
that of our subordinate units. Of course, achieving a more "network centric"
joint force is not the only transformational goal.

In regards to what the final transformed force will "look like"...it won't.
Look like anything, that is. Why? Because transformation is an open-ended
process; it will result in continuous evolution of the forces to face the
emerging and evolving threats. At least that is what DoD says:
(http://www.oft.osd.mil/library/libra...StrategyDoc1.p
df)

Brooks


R / John