Thanks for the announcement. Meantime here you can have a look at some great
F-35 photos:F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Pictures
"Our guy who always pushed HAFB and vitamins!"Yup. And he
went out of his way to insure that the "vitamin" companies could make
outlandish claims about what they could cure, and not have to back up
anything.Nothing like a good BUCK to insure that legislation allows
money to flow to those who pay.
Utah history will remember Senator Orrin Hatch as "Our guy who always pushed
HAFB and vitamins!"
This is a good move for the Air Force and the administration due to the large
training and flight areas in Nevada, Idaho and Utah for aircraft to perform
military roles and have the local depot and ATK close-by to evaluate and pursue
changes as needed. The military and civilian workforce along with contractor
involvement locally is outstanding at Hill AFB.It is good to see
that our security forces and missions will continue for the foreseeable future.
Thanks to good people that are supporting our way of life.
I agree that the technical problems and cost overruns with the F-35 program are
definitely problamtic (although cost overruns are not uncommon in civilian as
well as military contracts). But to all of those complaining about the F-35,
what is your solution? The F-35 will replace Air Force F-16's, Navy
F-18's (A-D models), and Marine Harriers. The first F-16's rolled of
the production line in 1976 with the newest US versions being over 10 years old.
Similarly, the first F-18's were produced in the late 70's with the
newest C/D models being 13 years old. Finally, the Harrier is based on a
British plane designed in the late 50's with the U.S. model being produced
between 1969 and 2003 (in addition, Harriers are very difficult to fly).These are all great planes, but they won't last forever. So
what's the solution? Do we just fly them all until they can't fly
anymore, and then disband the flying forces of our military, or do we build a
The military is stuck in the mentality of putting pilots in jets. They could be
faster, fly further and be more economical in every way if they didn't
insist on putting a fragile human in them who is subject to G-forces, fatigue,
injury and death. Drones are the future of combat aircraft, not $135M jets.
Bishop and Hatch are wrong.Even the military no longer wants this
weapons system.LDS?lib,the costs of the F35 pale when compared
to Obamacare. Even if purchased, the weapons system will eventually be retired
and the costs will end. Obamacare will go on and on and on and on and on and on
and - well, reasonable people will get the idea.we have learned
Obamacare will costs significantly more than originally projected when the lie
was being foisted on us. the costs will continue. No comparison between an
unneeded weapons system and a wasteful and damaging health insurance law.
Behold, the power of pork spending.
Re CHS 85I agree it would be nice if all base closings were based on
merit and need of the D of D but some how I feel that is not the case. Personal
feelings political considerations and lobbying have a huge effect on this
procedure.I seem to remember one politician here in Utah I do not
remember which campaigning on the fact that his senority could protect Hill AFB
from reductions and possible closing and the jobs it would lose while his or her
opponent would not have that seniority to accomplish that task.I am
probably wrong but I remember other elected officials talking about how they
can protect Hill AFB for the jobs and economic impact on northern Utah and
their opponents could not.Are these politicians simply feeding the
"Sheeple" or is there some truth to what they say?
Doug10 - Senators are not paid $380,000 annually.Everyone else -
Yes, the F-35 was "dumped" on Hill AFB, as the plane the Air Force
didn't want. It's not a happy situation, because Hill has already
lost its independence and is now just an adjunct facility of Oklahoma's
Tinker AFB.Look for Hill to be on the next BRAC list.
The colossal cost of the jet is awful.You know it is bad when they
send Sen Hatch as he can justify any cost in the country as he has done for the
past 20 years. He can be counted on by Washington, not by Utah but by the
politicians in the capital.He is the man who spent $10,000,000 to
win a job that pays him $380,000. Of the $10,000,000 he spent there was
$890,000 from Utah voters.Where did the rest come from? According to senator Htachs office it was interested citizens outside Utah.
Sorry Seantor I don't buy that story nor any you talk about now...they are
"Again, military bases are not jobs programs."Maybe not, but
the DOD is the largest employer in the world. When discussing base
closures, the first argument IS about jobs.Jobs may not have been
the impetus for opening a base, but is certainly ranks high when there are
thoughts of closing one.Who is the single biggest employer in Utah?
@Iron RodHill AFB isn't a jobs program, it is a strategic
military installation and if it is not needed, then it should be closed. I know
that would be horrific to the state of Utah, but Hill should not be spared
simply because it is in Utah. Other bases around the country were closed in
droves after the cold war, and Utah should feel fortunate that Hill AFB was not
closed along with them. And those bases were in politically important areas
where one would think political clout would save them - Fort Ord, Griffis AFB,
Long Beach Naval Shipyard, El Toro MCAB are just a few that come to mind. Again, military bases are not jobs programs.
"Wheeler — a longtime military-cost analyst on Capitol Hill (where he
toiled on both sides of the aisle) and the Government Accountability Office
— says the plane’s $159 million purported per copy price in that
latest Pentagon SAR — continues to rise, and is actually well north of
that sum."In a related issue, Lockheed Martin has spent over
$15 million in EACH of the past 2 years lobbying congress. THAT IS ONE COMPANY.
That is in addition to $4+ million in campaign contributions.The defense industry spent over $130 MILLION in 2012 lobbying congress.
Keep in mind, we only have 535 members of congress.Does anyone
believe that this money does not taint our politicians?But,
that's OK folks. Dont worry about corporations buying our politicians.
Our time is much better spent arguing over birth certificates and presidential
vacation costs.We carp daily about the pennies while the real
dollars fly out the window.And that is exactly what our politicians
want us to do.Can you imagine if both R and D banded together and
told congress, "YOU WILL NOT take obscene amounts of money from businesses
Let me see if I have this straight...We "need" a $400
Billion weapon system against a 'possible' threat, We don't
"need" an Affordable Healthcare system against a known threat.I get it now...NOT!
How about the answer "Corporate Welfare"?These companies
maintain an army of former Generals and "glad Handing" lobbyist who
occupy Washinton D.C,These companies and their lobbyists convince
our elected representatives that it is OK and logical to borrow money to give it
away to Egypt and Israel so they can buy expensive top of the line military jets
and other equipment from their companies.If that isn't a
classic example of "welfare" what s?
@BlueThe F-35 debacle is a colossal waste of taxpayer money.
From Bloomberg Business News: "The Pentagon envisioned the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter as an affordable, state-of-the-art stealth jet serving three military
branches and U.S. allies. Instead, the Lockheed Martin Corp. aircraft has been
plagued by a costly redesign, bulkhead cracks, too much weight, and delays to
essential software that have helped put it seven years behind schedule and 70
percent over its initial cost estimate. At almost $400 billion, it’s the
most expensive weapons system in U.S. history."And no one can
offer a rational answer to the question, "Why is this airplane, which
can't fly in the rain, even remotely needed?
I would hope the constant negative comments from our Senator Lee about the
current administration in power would not impact the future mission of Hill
AFB.At times when people feel they have been wronged unjustly they
strike back and cutting the role of Hill AFB would be one way for the
administration to strike back at Senator Lee.Is he ready for it?