Author Topic: Obama threatens veto if defense bill funds F-22s (With "Friends like these . .) (Read 1857 times)

Soul Crusher · « **on:** July 13, 2009, 12:59:36 PM »

Obama threatens veto if defense bill funds F-22s
The Hill ^ | July 23. 2009 | Roxana Tiron

Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 2:28:21 PM by jazusamo

In an unusual move, President Obama sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee vowing to veto any defense bill that funds more Lockheed Martin F-22 fighter jets.

Obama threw down the gauntlet as the Senate took up the 2010 defense authorization bill. The firm commitment to veto any defense bill containing funding for the F-22 puts Obama in a tough position: he would veto bills written by a Democratic Congress.

The letter to Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) comes as the two senators introduced an amendment to strip $1.75 billion for seven additional F-22s from the Pentagon policy bill.

“...I will veto any bill that supports acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded by Congress,” Obama wrote on Monday. The Obama administration wants to cap the F-22 fleet at 187 aircraft.

The Senate could face a close vote on whether to strip the money from the defense authorization bill. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) won narrow support for an amendment to authorize funds for more F-22s when the Armed Services Committee marked up the bill last month. Levin and McCain opposed it at the time.

________________________ ________________________ _______________

Just wow.

GigantorX · « **Reply #1 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:14:44 PM »

As long as the JSF is on track to be 2500+ plane program, I'm fine with this. The F-22 will most likely not be able to be exported and there are some problems with sustaining to big a fleet. It is the most dominant aircraft in history but its development by LockMart was pretty brutal.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:19:14 PM »

Quote from: GigantorX on July 13, 2009, 01:14:44 PM

As long as the JSF is on track to be 2500+ plane program, I'm fine with this. The F-22 will most likely not be able to be exported and there are some problems with sustaining to big a fleet. It is the most dominant aircraft in history but its development by LockMart was pretty brutal.

From what i understand, the F22 is the same as a few F15's.

MuscleMcMannus · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:48:37 PM »

LMAO! What a fucking clown Obama is. He was willing to fucking support $700+ billion bailouts for WallStreet and Banks but a measly fucking $1.75 billion for a few more F-22's get his homo panties in a bunch? Fuck this clown!

Dos Equis · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2009, 02:04:27 PM »

Why the veto?

JOCKTHEGLIDE · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2009, 02:24:45 PM »

main reason he would stop the funds on the F22s: STARSCREAM

GigantorX · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2009, 02:30:26 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on July 13, 2009, 01:19:14 PM

From what i understand, the F22 is the same as a few F15's.

Read about the F-22 and its capabilities, it would annihilate several F-15's on its own at the same time. It has actually done this in exercises. The F-15's were knocked out of the sky before they even knew the F-22 was around.

Hereford · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2009, 03:53:27 PM »

Quote from: MuscleMcMannus on July 13, 2009, 01:48:37 PM

LMAO! What a fucking clown Obama is. He was willing to fucking support $700+ billion bailouts for WallStreet and Banks but a measly fucking $1.75 billion for a few more F-22's get his homo panties in a bunch? Fuck this clown!

x2.

I guess the military didn't kick in enough campain funds.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #8 on:** July 13, 2009, 04:23:07 PM »

The F22 is here...the JSF has tons of issues, many of our NATO partners are waffling on its future development. We have the production lines open on the F22..the JSF might has well be a space ship...its not in production. Barry is a worthless asshat.

GigantorX · « **Reply #9 on:** July 13, 2009, 07:51:12 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on July 13, 2009, 04:23:07 PM

The F22 is here...the JSF has tons of issues, many of our NATO partners are waffling on its future development. We have the production lines open on the F22..the JSF might has well be a space ship...its not in production. Barry is a worthless asshat.

True. But the F-22 does have some sustainment issues as well, spare parts, software upgrades etc. Building 1,000 of these would lead to a lot of problems with upkeep in the future. LockMart fucked up a bit with its development of it, but the Obama seems to be putting all of the eggs in the JSF basket and the JSF is years away.

When it comes down to it, the Air Force is going to need new airframes to replace the rapidly aging fleet.

OzmO · « **Reply #10 on:** July 13, 2009, 09:25:52 PM »

Long term use and development of UAV's might play something into these decisions.

Brixtonbulldog · « **Reply #11 on:** July 13, 2009, 09:32:39 PM »

Yet another accurate and informative thread being avoided like a rabid bear/lion/dragon by the getbig socialist nut bin.

grab an umbrella · « **Reply #12 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:31:19 PM »

Brixton you are absolutely correct. Ozmo, UAV's have their place, but it certainly isn't against manned jet fighters. The F-22 is and will continue to be the baddest fighting plane on the planet. Coupled with our F-15's(which often have mechanical problems) our air superiority will continue. I personally think it's dumb/naive on Obama's part to halt manufacturing of these aircraft.

Just my 2

the_steevo_uk · « **Reply #13 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:55:11 PM »

Id just like to know from the military men here why you would need anymore F-22's? If theyre so dominant and you have 190 of them already then that by my calculation means they could comfortably take out close to 1000 F-15's

no other country has near that amount of aircraft apart from Russia...so unless your planning on picking a fight with them I'd save your cash for something more useful.

Hereford · « **Reply #14 on:** July 13, 2009, 11:42:33 PM »

The JSF... Are you guys talking about the F-35?

Hedgehog · « **Reply #15 on:** July 13, 2009, 11:45:28 PM »

Quote from: MuscleMcMannus on July 13, 2009, 01:48:37 PM

LMAO! What a fucking clown Obama is. He was willing to fucking support $700+ billion bailouts for WallStreet and Banks but a measly fucking $1.75 billion for a few more F-22's get his homo panties in a bunch? Fuck this clown!

So I take it you have no problem with the Military getting around 30 percent of the national budget?

Where is the excessive spending gonna end?

Parker · « **Reply #16 on:** July 14, 2009, 12:03:09 AM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on July 13, 2009, 04:23:07 PM

The F22 is here...the JSF has tons of issues, many of our NATO partners are waffling on its future development. We have the production lines open on the F22..the JSF might has well be a space ship...its not in production. Barry is a worthless asshat.

Agreed I was watching a documentary on the two competing companies, which could do it the cheapest. It somewhat resembles the F-22, but the Raptor of course has more capabilities. I believe the JSF can land and take off vertically, but maintenance on that and the F22 will probably be a bitch. From what I understand (and my knowledge is limited) the latest Soviet Su class fighter can match the F22.
As far as Obama, I don't know the ends and outs, but hopefully this is not a true sign of things to come in terms of our military tech...The Airforce is now researching wings that are flexible and look and act like a bird's wing (not like the fixed swing wing design), but foldible.

grab an umbrella · « **Reply #17 on:** July 14, 2009, 12:24:50 AM »

To answer your question hereford, yes the jsf is the x/f-35.

To address the underlying issue, the F-22 is much more capable than the F-35(x-35, from here on, F-35). The F-22 easily outperforms the F-35, but the F-35 is intended to be a fighter that many countries possess(fuck all that noise, America should have the best fighter, shit, we're paying for most of the F-35). I can't think of a reason to replace the F-22 other than to give other countries an even playing field(again fuck all that noise). The only thing I can point to is one world gov. Sounds crazy, but whatever.

Alex23 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 14, 2009, 12:27:24 AM »

Obama is threading on thin ice...

Hedgehog · « **Reply #19 on:** July 14, 2009, 12:44:46 AM »

Quote from: Alex23 on July 14, 2009, 12:27:24 AM

Obama is threading on thin ice...

agreed.

Alex23 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 14, 2009, 12:47:12 AM »

Quote from: Hedgehog on July 14, 2009, 12:44:46 AM

agreed.

Unless there are viable technological alternatives justifying not renewing/buying more, defense spending is great way to stimulate the economy... better than "infrastructure projects" going nofuckingwhere....

Hedgehog · « **Reply #21 on:** July 14, 2009, 12:55:34 AM »

Quote from: Alex23 on July 14, 2009, 12:47:12 AM

Unless there are viable technological alternatives justifying not renewing/buying more, defense spending is great way to stimulate the economy... better than "infrastructure projects" going nofuckingwhere....

Look at Japan.

They have extremely impressive infrastructure with their Shinkansen high speed trains running for 30 plus years.

Imagine what USA would be like if there was a high speed train line from Seattle all the way to San Diego, and the same on the east coast.

Perhaps even a huge high speed railway could be built across the inland, to connect the west with the east.

And the point being some may ask.

Having short travel distances between major cities improves business, science exchange and everything.

So I think spending a big part of the military budget on either tax cuts or infrastructure would be a smart move.

With tax cuts you would obviously free up a lot of liquidity.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #22 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:36:06 AM »

Quote from: Hedgehog on July 14, 2009, 12:55:34 AM

Look at Japan.

They have extremely impressive infrastructure with their Shinkansen high speed trains running for 30 plus years.

Imagine what USA would be like if there was a high speed train line from Seattle all the way to San Diego, and the same on the east coast.

Perhaps even a huge high speed railway could be built across the inland, to connect the west with the east.

And the point being some may ask.

Having short travel distances between major cities improves business, science exchange and everything.

So I think spending a big part of the military budget on either tax cuts or infrastructure would be a smart move.

With tax cuts you would obviously free up a lot of liquidity.

Everyone is now admitting that the stimulus bill was a lie. The infrastructure spending is only 10% of the total bill, while entitlement spending and govt payroll support is the balance.

Hedgehog · « **Reply #23 on:** July 14, 2009, 06:07:50 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on July 14, 2009, 04:36:06 AM

Everyone is now admitting that the stimulus bill was a lie. The infrastructure spending is only 10% of the total bill, while entitlement spending and govt payroll support is the balance.

I won't argue with you on that because I have too little information to form a qualified opinion.

But regardless - if the military budget would shrink to 15-20 percent of the budget, there would be a lot of room for eg tax cuts.

My point was pretty much only that a huge military budget means that the taxes will go up.

GigantorX · « **Reply #24 on:** July 14, 2009, 06:14:25 AM »

Quote from: Hedgehog on July 14, 2009, 12:55:34 AM

Look at Japan.

They have extremely impressive infrastructure with their Shinkansen high speed trains running for 30 plus years.

Imagine what USA would be like if there was a high speed train line from Seattle all the way to San Diego, and the same on the east coast.

Perhaps even a huge high speed railway could be built across the inland, to connect the west with the east.

And the point being some may ask.

Having short travel distances between major cities improves business, science exchange and everything.

So I think spending a big part of the military budget on either tax cuts or infrastructure would be a smart move.

With tax cuts you would obviously free up a lot of liquidity.

I agree. If we are going to spend almost 1 trillion dollars on a Stimulus Bill, why can't the Govt. begin to start big infrastructure projects,like you mentioned, that would change the way we travel and the speed at which we do it? Why give ALL the money directly to the state govt's so they can patch holes in their budgets, repave roads and throw it at god knows what else (I'm from IL so I know all about this)?

I believe that part of the reason was to make sure there was enough money thrown around in Dem. states to ensure victories for the incumbents come election time in a few years. Cynical, yes, but it makes sense.