Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (159866)	2/6/2009 9:37:19 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361952

let them chase Wind Mills.. the power supply ..and job creation only make good sense

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (159866)	2/6/2009 9:38:06 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361952

Mortgage warrior Bruce Marks.. on NPR this am................. naca.com

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (159866)	2/6/2009 10:13:12 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361952

re Georgia Rep. David Scott appealed to Obama to continue production of the F-22 fighter plane. One-third Russian fighter jets old and unsafe: report Fri Feb 6, MOSCOW (Reuters) – About one-third of all Russian fighter jets should be written off as obsolete because they are unable to fly, the Kommersant business daily reported on Friday, quoting defense ministry and military officials. Russia grounded all of its MiG-29 fighter jets last December after two of the aircraft crashed near the same airfield in eastern Siberia in just as many months. One pilot died. Flights of MiG-29s have resumed since then, but hundreds are simply too old even to take off, Kommersant said. "Russia's Defense Ministry for the first time recognized that around 200 of its MiG-29s are not just unable to cope with their combat tasks, but simply cannot take off," the paper said. The report could hit Russia's reputation as a leading arms exporter and undermine Kremlin attempts to project Russia as a revived military power. Both of the MiG-29s that crashed in eastern Siberia had been in service since 1985, Kommersant wrote. "The main cause of the crash of the MiG-29 aircraft was the destruction of the keel in the air due to corrosion," the paper quoted Lt.-Gen. Sergei Bainetov, head of the Defense Ministry's flight safety department, as saying. "Those fighter jets on which corrosion was not detected -- and they make up approximately 30 percent of all (MiG-29) jets -- have been allowed to resume flights." The Defense Ministry could not be reached for comment. Russia's armed forces now have 291 MiG-29s, but around 200 MiGs are unsafe and have to be grounded for good, the paper said. That would take out of action about a third of all Russia's fleet of fighter jets, which totals some 650 aircraft. The report is likely to tarnish the image of the Soviet-era MiG-29 fighter, codenamed Fulcrum by NATO, which had been considered to be one of Russia's most advanced military jets. It was designed in the 1970s. Last April, Algeria returned to Russia 15 MiG-29SMTs, saying the aircraft contained some substandard parts. In December, soon after the last crash of the MiG-29, Russia announced it would give Lebanon 10 MiG-29s as a gift, adding that the aircraft were not new and each warplane had a different degree of wear. Russia promised to modernize the jets "to normal export standards" before delivery. (Reporting by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by Richard Balmforth)

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (159866)	2/6/2009 1:23:28 PM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 361952

The incremental cost of each F-22 is around $138 million. Current production is 20 per year. Reducing that to 15 would reduce the F-22 program to around $2 billion per year. It would cost around $400 million to terminate the F-22 program. Once closed, the program can't be restarted quickly. There are long and costly lead times required for F-22 - or any other high tech aircraft - components. It's important that the United States maintain the manufacturing base and brain trust for fighter aircraft, tanks, submarines and naval vessels. That $2 billion a year to maintain a fighter production line of 15 aircraft annually is a lot of money, but in light of the $500 billion Pentagon budget, or the proposed economic stimulus packages, not that much. Don't depend on the Pentagon to make the right choices. Many years ago the Air Force wanted to retire the A-10 and assign its role to modified F-16s. Congress kept the A-10 line open, and the heavily armored, slow A-10 has been a unqualified success in providing close air support to troops on the battlefield. On might argue that if A-10 pilots, being able to fly low and slow and able to visual ID targets, would not be bombing as many wedding celebrations in Afghanistan as the hot shot F-16s which rely on speed, and don't give the pilot much time to look before he shoots.