Page 10 – Key Publishing

Dinger

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 224 total)

← 1 2 3 … 9 10 11 … 13 14 15 →

Author

Posts
January 4, 2005 at 8:01 pm in reply to: If you were a JSF user, what would your other aircraft be? #2619277

Dinger
Participant

F-18

“Compare Arnolda Scharzennegerov’s stances and Bush’s stance, and you will see.”

All those differences disappeared once Arnie, Guiliani, Powell, McCain, and all the other so-called moderates lined up behind Bush and pushed hard for his reelection. When the time came to stand up and say what they believed in, they loudly declared that they believed in Bush’s view of the world. Whatever their personal beliefs, they sure don’t take them very seriously.

January 4, 2005 at 7:25 pm in reply to: If you were a JSF user, what would your other aircraft be? #2619288

Dinger
Participant

F-18

“there are numerous numerous issues where they differ, not just economics my fast food friend.”

Sorry, don’t know what you’re talking about here. Can you rephrase this?

January 4, 2005 at 6:49 pm in reply to: If you were a JSF user, what would your other aircraft be? #2619319

Dinger
Participant

F-18

Reliance on free market principles rather than centralized planning is a core belief of the republican party, and it’s something that sets the thinking of the guys who currently hold power in the U.S. So anyone in the U.S. has to deal with that reality no matter how purple a view of the world the person might have.

January 4, 2005 at 6:02 pm in reply to: If you were a JSF user, what would your other aircraft be? #2619375

Dinger
Participant

SOC:

CAFE regs for SUVs were something Kerry was for, I believe. Bush and the congressional republicans aren’t. So America has made its bed on those for now.

“Ah, but if we are able to write off the Middle East, then the next time a single terrorit act is committed against US persons, there’d be an easy response.”

Not with Europe, Japan, and Korea still relying on a couple of billion barrels a day of mideast oil, there wouldn’t be. The blowback would be excessive.

January 4, 2005 at 4:18 pm in reply to: If you were a JSF user, what would your other aircraft be? #2619452

Dinger
Participant

SOC:

Assuming that all ANWR oil was earmarked for the U.S. at some kind of fixed price (which nobody in power is talking about), we would be free of Arab oil for 10 years. But 10 years is not that long a period if you’re talking about changing the energy infrastructure. Get rid of SUVs? What kind of card-carrying member of the right wing conspiracy are you? That’s government control over the market place and it’s pretty much a non-starter with the current guys in power.

Meanwhile, the Gulf nations would still be supplying oil to other markets. They’ll still be raking in cash, particularly from Asia. So the terrorist hotbed remains. And other big exporters to the U.S. like Russia and Venezuela could increase prices to the U.S. market knowing that Mideast suppliers will not make up any difference.

January 4, 2005 at 2:10 pm in reply to: If you were a JSF user, what would your other aircraft be? #2619523

Dinger
Participant

Soc:

The projected reserves in ANWAR would be enough to cover U.S. consumption for a very short time. Nor has anyone promised to keep any production from ANWAR earmarked as cheap oil for the U.S. rather than placing in the world market (where, if I remember correctly, it is projected to drop oil prices a couple of percentage points at most).

So don’t blame the greenies for keeping us dependent on mideast production. The arabs have got lots of oil, and we’ve got the big habit.

January 4, 2005 at 1:38 pm in reply to: JA 37 Viggen retirement air-to-air photos #2619533

Dinger
Participant

Thanks Daniel. How many Gripens are the Swedes getting per year? Will they replace the retired Viggens on a one for one basis, or will the number of squadrons be reduced?

January 3, 2005 at 3:20 pm in reply to: Polish parts for F-14 up[grades? What the f!@k? #2620235

Dinger
Participant

Erez:

I’m talking only about parts for American F-16 aircraft, not those on the international market. I don’t follow the service contracts for the USAF too much, but I suspect the DOD heavily favors American vendors. Maybe big prime contractors like Lockheed subcontract some work out to overseas firms, but Congress tends to see every defense dollar as money that could be spent in somebody’s home district. Going offshore too much can become a political football.

We’re going to see more on this issue as time goes on, however, with Lockheed pushing the rebadged US-101 as a presidential helicopter and Northrop Grumman maybe pairing with EADS on a tanker proposal. Offshore companies seem to want a bigger share of the huge U.S. defense market, but I’d be surprised if Congress changes its tune (then again, I’ve often been surprised in the past by Congress).

January 3, 2005 at 2:57 pm in reply to: Polish parts for F-14 up[grades? What the f!@k? #2620277

Dinger
Participant

Erez,

That could be in the future. Or it could be that the contracts for those are too big and juicy to go offshore.

January 3, 2005 at 2:09 pm in reply to: JA 37 Viggen retirement air-to-air photos #2620328

Dinger
Participant

Probably a money issue. Not enough of a threat out there to justify keeping them in service. How long are they planning on keeping the AJSFs running? Anyone know?

January 3, 2005 at 1:53 pm in reply to: Polish parts for F-14 up[grades? What the f!@k? #2620353

Dinger
Participant

A 275k contract from the Navy is a very, very small deal. Sounds like this is one of the small bones the Pentagon has been throwing the Poles recently. The Poles were complaining a while back about the offsets they were getting and the lack of contract work in Iraq. Got to keep your friends happy as best you can.

January 3, 2005 at 1:45 pm in reply to: That FB-22 thing … #2620362

Dinger
Participant

Should Rummy get the heat for the bomber version of the F-22? My impression was that idea was being pushed by the USAF leadership and Congressional fans.

January 3, 2005 at 1:33 pm in reply to: JA 37 Viggen retirement air-to-air photos #2620393

Dinger
Participant

So that’s it for Viggens in the swedish AF? Are they still using any at all?

December 30, 2004 at 4:12 pm in reply to: Raptors may be cut to 160 #2622137

Dinger
Participant

I can’t see the influence of the crash here. These issues have been festering for a while. Competition for procurement cash is always intense, and when you toss in a war with expected costs that will take about 20-25% of the defense budget for operations combined with the need to replace equipment that is being used up, you’re talking about guys in the Pentagon scrambling around trying to find money wherever they can. It’s all about the money. And it’s only going to get worse.

JSF. UCAVs. Tankers. Transports. Missile defense. Upgraded networking and other transformational technologies. On and on. The F-22 will have a lot of competition over the next decade, with no huge leap in defense spending.

December 30, 2004 at 3:13 pm in reply to: Raptors may be cut to 160 #2622175

Dinger
Participant

Yeah, cancellation is a real possibility. The bang for the buck of 160 aircraft doesn’t seem that high to some in the Pentagon. Seems like the USAF’s obsession with stealth is the problem. Stealth costs big bucks to develop, and isn’t maintaining it something of a maintenance nightmare? Yet whenever the USAF talks about building an aircraft now, they want stealth. I mean, stealth transports? C’mon, already. Eventually reality had to intrude.

Or have I got it wrong about the expense of developing and building a stealthy platform?
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 224 total)

← 1 2 3 … 9 10 11 … 13 14 15 →