Shocking stat, even for libs (I hope)

Dec 17, 2007
14,536
359
83
Complicating the process, Pfannenstein said, is the fact that each aircraft is unique, and its parts are no longer available because the legacy Hornet is out of production.

The Hornet, while a worthy air-frame, is in the process of being decommissioned and replaced with the JSF-F35 over the next 6 years. The Navy has admitted that they did not properly prepared for this transition, having to extend the "flight-life" of the Hornet from 6,000 hours to 10,000 hours.

Here's the full report: https://www.navytimes.com/story/mil...-life-extension-strike-fighter-f-35/24381745/
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Complicating the process, Pfannenstein said, is the fact that each aircraft is unique, and its parts are no longer available because the legacy Hornet is out of production.

The Hornet, while a worthy air-frame, is in the process of being decommissioned and replaced with the JSF-F35 over the next 6 years. The Navy has admitted that they did not properly prepared for this transition, having to extend the "flight-life" of the Hornet from 6,000 hours to 10,000 hours.

Here's the full report: https://www.navytimes.com/story/mil...-life-extension-strike-fighter-f-35/24381745/

These are excuses. We have to get our military readiness up. We still use these aircraft. Why not read about Sequester and the impact on the military and readiness.
 
Dec 17, 2007
14,536
359
83
These are excuses. We have to get our military readiness up. We still use these aircraft. Why not read about Sequester and the impact on the military and readiness.

I can't get any more direct on this than quoting the Navy spokesperson themselves.
 

WVMade

Redshirt
Aug 23, 2016
1,221
0
0
These are excuses. We have to get our military readiness up. We still use these aircraft. Why not read about Sequester and the impact on the military and readiness.
While you and Donnie Bone Spur were worried about The Dukes of Hazard being pulled.... OBAMA was on it.
  • The Navy is building 12 ballistic missile submarines to replace the current force of 14 beginning with the first hull in 2021. The Navy budgeted $1.4 billion for research and development in fiscal year 2016, but the challenge is funding the total of about $103 billion.

  • The Defense Department is in the middle of the largest aircraft procurement ever for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In recent years, around 30 have been built a year, and that will ramp up to 100 a year around 2017. Plans call for acquiring 2,443 joint strike fighters over about 20 years at a cost of nearly $400 billion.

  • In October, the Air Force awarded a contract for the new bomber program, known as a long-range strike bomber. However, the bid is currently under protest by Boeing. The cost estimate is $21.4 billion for the engineering and manufacturing development phase and then $550 million per aircraft for the first 21 of 100. The 100 planes are expected to be done by the 2020s.
"It is an ironic fact that the president who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his soaring disarmament rhetoric is the same president who has laid out $1 trillion plan to modernize every aspect of the U.S. nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years," said Matthew Bunn, an expert on nuclear proliferation and a professor Harvard University.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
It's a sequestration, program delay, funding issue. This is as much the fault of the right as anyone with how they played budget games against the left.

Both sides participated, but Sequester was Obama's idea. He is the Commander in Chief and should stand up for his troops, no?
 

JMichael

Redshirt
Jul 7, 2001
619
3
18
For 2016, the current budget year, the Defense Department’s budget is roughly $581 billion. That includes $59 billion for fighting IS, operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other missions. There’s $111 billion for new equipment and upgrades, ranging from jet fighters, helicopters, ships and submarines. Another $70 billion is for the research and development of new technologies.

If West Virginia could have just 1 billion we could balance are budget.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
For 2016, the current budget year, the Defense Department’s budget is roughly $581 billion. That includes $59 billion for fighting IS, operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other missions. There’s $111 billion for new equipment and upgrades, ranging from jet fighters, helicopters, ships and submarines. Another $70 billion is for the research and development of new technologies.

If West Virginia could have just 1 billion we could balance are budget.

Have you read the Oath of Office, part of which reads?

I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

National defense is one of each of our President's solemn duties.

Their duty is not to balance the WV budget.
 
Dec 17, 2007
14,536
359
83
Both sides participated, but Sequester was Obama's idea. He is the Commander in Chief and should stand up for his troops, no?
Accordingto Vice Adm. Shoemaker, The Navy's fiscal year 2016 budget proposal doesn't include any more Super Hornets, though it does fund the legacy version's life extension.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Accordingto Vice Adm. Shoemaker, The Navy's fiscal year 2016 budget proposal doesn't include any more Super Hornets, though it does fund the legacy version's life extension.

As Mattis said, the budget will focus on preparedness. The Hornets will be ready and able to fly.
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
While you and Donnie Bone Spur were worried about The Dukes of Hazard being pulled.... OBAMA was on it.
  • The Navy is building 12 ballistic missile submarines to replace the current force of 14 beginning with the first hull in 2021. The Navy budgeted $1.4 billion for research and development in fiscal year 2016, but the challenge is funding the total of about $103 billion.

  • The Defense Department is in the middle of the largest aircraft procurement ever for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In recent years, around 30 have been built a year, and that will ramp up to 100 a year around 2017. Plans call for acquiring 2,443 joint strike fighters over about 20 years at a cost of nearly $400 billion.

  • In October, the Air Force awarded a contract for the new bomber program, known as a long-range strike bomber. However, the bid is currently under protest by Boeing. The cost estimate is $21.4 billion for the engineering and manufacturing development phase and then $550 million per aircraft for the first 21 of 100. The 100 planes are expected to be done by the 2020s.
"It is an ironic fact that the president who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his soaring disarmament rhetoric is the same president who has laid out $1 trillion plan to modernize every aspect of the U.S. nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years," said Matthew Bunn, an expert on nuclear proliferation and a professor Harvard University.

The right refuses to concede that Obama was a tad hawkish
 

Popeer

Freshman
Sep 8, 2003
21,466
81
0
Both sides participated, but Sequester was Obama's idea. He is the Commander in Chief and should stand up for his troops, no?
Weeping Jesus on the cross. Yes, sequestration was Obama's "idea." When you were a kid about to do something brain-dead ******* stupid, did your parents ever say "Go ahead, see what happens!"? That's sequestration. Obama mistakenly believed there enough rational adults in Congress to come up with a better plan. Silly Obama.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Weeping Jesus on the cross. Yes, sequestration was Obama's "idea." When you were a kid about to do something brain-dead ****ing stupid, did your parents ever say "Go ahead, see what happens!"? That's sequestration. Obama mistakenly believed there enough rational adults in Congress to come up with a better plan. Silly Obama.

It was Obamas idea. He did nothing during sequestration to go to battle for his troops. And he is the commander-in-chief.
 

Popeer

Freshman
Sep 8, 2003
21,466
81
0
It was Obamas idea. He did nothing during sequestration to go to battle for his troops. And he is the commander-in-chief.

The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies. But keep parroting that Ted Cruz line that it's Obama's fault, dumbass.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38

The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies. But keep parroting that Ted Cruz line that it's Obama's fault, dumbass.

Who is the Commander in Chief? Who do ALL of our military report to? Who is supposed to have their backs? He can sure send them to Syria, Iraq, Yemen, but to heck with proper funding to keep our military assets available and working.
 

mule_eer

Freshman
May 6, 2002
20,438
58
48
Who is the Commander in Chief? Who do ALL of our military report to? Who is supposed to have their backs? He can sure send them to Syria, Iraq, Yemen, but to heck with proper funding to keep our military assets available and working.
Who controls the purse strings? Without Congressional support, sequestration was only an idea. You are blaming Obama for one thing that he suggested and they voted to go along with. Then they blame him for having the initial idea when they failed to come to any agreement.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Who controls the purse strings? Without Congressional support, sequestration was only an idea. You are blaming Obama for one thing that he suggested and they voted to go along with. Then they blame him for having the initial idea when they failed to come to any agreement.

It was his idea and he placed his military in the crosshairs. That is not what a commander in chief does. The GOP called his bluff. Many, many begged Obama to relent and to support and fund the military. He refused.

By the way, the president initiates the entire budget process, not Congress.
 

mule_eer

Freshman
May 6, 2002
20,438
58
48
It was his idea and he placed his military in the crosshairs. That is not what a commander in chief does. The GOP called his bluff. Many, many begged Obama to relent and to support and fund the military. He refused.

By the way, the president initiates the entire budget process, not Congress.
He made them stick by a deal that they voted on? Also, where did he suddenly get all this power? If he wielded that much influence, surely he could have forced a vote on a Supreme Court Justice nominee in his final year.

I'm not saying Obama is without blame, but a GOP Congress isn't an innocent bystander.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,686
1,751
113
He made them stick by a deal that they voted on? Also, where did he suddenly get all this power? If he wielded that much influence, surely he could have forced a vote on a Supreme Court Justice nominee in his final year.

I'm not saying Obama is without blame, but a GOP Congress isn't an innocent bystander.
You're right, they aren't without blame. The point is that he played poker with the GOPs sacred cow of National Defense. They let him. I didn't see a lot of compromise out of him. He didn't back down and the military paid for it. Bad on both of them. A real leader would have chosen to seek compromise. He didn't. The country suffered and the DNC was gutted because of it.
 

mule_eer

Freshman
May 6, 2002
20,438
58
48
You're right, they aren't without blame. The point is that he played poker with the GOPs sacred cow of National Defense. They let him. I didn't see a lot of compromise out of him. He didn't back down and the military paid for it. Bad on both of them. A real leader would have chosen to seek compromise. He didn't. The country suffered and the DNC was gutted because of it.
You do realize that defense wasn't the only cut, right? It was intended to be a poison pill for both sides.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,686
1,751
113
You do realize that defense wasn't the only cut, right? It was intended to be a poison pill for both sides.
Yes.

Mule, I like your style but you'll never convince me otherwise on this one. A leader finds a way to reach a compromise and ensure the success of his organization. He tried playing bully politics and we all suffered because of it. He was a bad leader.
 

Snow Sled Baby

Sophomore
Jan 4, 2003
44,526
111
53
Complicating the process, Pfannenstein said, is the fact that each aircraft is unique, and its parts are no longer available because the legacy Hornet is out of production.

The Hornet, while a worthy air-frame, is in the process of being decommissioned and replaced with the JSF-F35 over the next 6 years. The Navy has admitted that they did not properly prepared for this transition, having to extend the "flight-life" of the Hornet from 6,000 hours to 10,000 hours.

Here's the full report: https://www.navytimes.com/story/mil...-life-extension-strike-fighter-f-35/24381745/
and whose fault is that?........give me an O.....give me a B....give me an A.........
 

mule_eer

Freshman
May 6, 2002
20,438
58
48
Yes.

Mule, I like your style but you'll never convince me otherwise on this one. A leader finds a way to reach a compromise and ensure the success of his organization. He tried playing bully politics and we all suffered because of it. He was a bad leader.
I'm not trying to defend Obama's leadership, but I think everyone thought this idea was a good one when Congress agreed to it. We thought they might actually act like adults - set a deadline and take steps to meet it. Unfortunately, we found out that they are horribly untrustworthy adults. That's not a statement intended to defend Obama's leadership. It's intended to bash on Congress' ability to be useful, at least that Congress' ability.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
I'm not trying to defend Obama's leadership, but I think everyone thought this idea was a good one when Congress agreed to it. We thought they might actually act like adults - set a deadline and take steps to meet it. Unfortunately, we found out that they are horribly untrustworthy adults. That's not a statement intended to defend Obama's leadership. It's intended to bash on Congress' ability to be useful, at least that Congress' ability.

This was Obamas idea. He is the commander-in-chief, not Congress. He should be looking out for the troops that report to him. Why propose this in the first place if he thought it had any chance of hurting the troops. He tried to call the GOP's bluff and he failed. And the troops and our readiness have paid for it dearly.
 

mule_eer

Freshman
May 6, 2002
20,438
58
48
This was Obamas idea. He is the commander-in-chief, not Congress. He should be looking out for the troops that report to him. Why propose this in the first place if he thought it had any chance of hurting the troops. He tried to call the GOP's bluff and he failed. And the troops and our readiness have paid for it dearly.
Again, it was a poison pill for both parties. No one thought that both sides would be dumb enough to swallow it, especially when they helped pack it with poison. Plenty of blame to go around on this one, but somehow you seem to want to blame one person only.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,686
1,751
113
Again, it was a poison pill for both parties. No one thought that both sides would be dumb enough to swallow it, especially when they helped pack it with poison. Plenty of blame to go around on this one, but somehow you seem to want to blame one person only.
Because he is the one supposed to "lead".
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Again, it was a poison pill for both parties. No one thought that both sides would be dumb enough to swallow it, especially when they helped pack it with poison. Plenty of blame to go around on this one, but somehow you seem to want to blame one person only.

With all due respect, he is the commander-in-chief. You don't risk the lives of our troops for a strategy that could place them in jeopardy. As Dvldog.pointed out this is all about leadership. A leader would never do this to his troops. Yes, I predominately place the blame on him. We have only one commander in chief. And that is an extremely serious role.
 

Keyser76

Freshman
Apr 7, 2010
11,912
58
0
Lol, Donald is the great savior and everything before didn't work and was broken, your boy gonna take down everyone stupid enough to think Trump has a clue. Has McCain punched that fat POS in the dace yet? Lol.
 

mule_eer

Freshman
May 6, 2002
20,438
58
48
Because he is the one supposed to "lead".
I agree, and I agree that he was generally subpar in that area, especially with respect to dealing with Congress. When that deal was first made, I thought it was a good idea. I didn't think our representatives would be juvenile enough to let the schedule lapse. I also think Obama should have been pushing on them to meet the deadline. That's where I think he failed on this issue. I do think that our elected representatives should be able to act like adults without having to be babysat by the chief executive. That's where I fault them.