Decision to be made on whether spending $11B+ on 28 presidential helicopters is necessary

[StageLeft]

Link

a new fleet of 28 Marine One helicopters that will each cost more than the last Air Force One...the program is one more inheritance from the Bush administration, which began the effort after the Sept. 11 attacks generated concern about whether presidential helicopters from the 1970s were up to the challenge of terrorist threats.

Damn that is a ton of change for a single helicopter. Other than benefits like flying farther and faster (+ communications), I wonder if it would be cheaper to just crank out a bunch more replicas of what there is now and whenever he flies have at least a half dozen lookalikes going around as decoys!

 

[MotF Bane]

28? That's overkill.

64-foot-long presidential helicopter

:shocked:

 

[Thump553]

The Pentagon awarded a contract in 2005 to Lockheed Martin, even though it had never built helicopters, reasoning that a three-engine model produced by its British-Italian partner, called the EH-101, provided a useful foundation.

In doing so, the Pentagon bypassed Sikorsky Aircraft, the contractor since the Eisenhower era. Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut, where Sikorsky is based, said she believed the Bush administration wanted to reward Britain and Italy for support in Iraq. "I think this was a way of saying, 'We understand what you did for us; now we're trying to do something for you,' " she said.

Ditching an American company (who is hurting for business BTW) to reward one of GWB's buddies-and to a company that has never built a helicopter? F--- 'em.

 

[Triumph]

What a waste. $11B for 28 helicopters is $392 million for each chopper. That could buy three F-22 Raptors, when distributing R&D costs over each unit. I'm sorry, but the president's life just isn't worth that much money.

 

[BarneyFife]

If it puts people to work in the US, I'm all for it.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Thump553

The Pentagon awarded a contract in 2005 to Lockheed Martin, even though it had never built helicopters, reasoning that a three-engine model produced by its British-Italian partner, called the EH-101, provided a useful foundation.

In doing so, the Pentagon bypassed Sikorsky Aircraft, the contractor since the Eisenhower era. Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut, where Sikorsky is based, said she believed the Bush administration wanted to reward Britain and Italy for support in Iraq. "I think this was a way of saying, 'We understand what you did for us; now we're trying to do something for you,' " she said.

Ditching an American company (who is hurting for business BTW) to reward one of GWB's buddies-and to a company that has never built a helicopter? F--- 'em.

How hard can it be, they just have some blade thingies that spin around really fast on a motor

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Obama better shut that down (if he has a say in it).

He is talking about CEO's buying jets and such when their companies are doing terrible, then he better work on conserving spending while the economy is where it's at.

 

[da loser]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Damn that is a ton of change for a single helicopter. Other than benefits like flying farther and faster (+ communications), I wonder if it would be cheaper to just crank out a bunch more replicas of what there is now and whenever he flies have at least a half dozen lookalikes going around as decoys!

you realize that's not possible right?

 

[maddogchen]

do we really need 28? assuming one is for the VP too and 6 maybe down for maintenance, are you gonna fly 20 as decoys simultaneously?

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
do we really need 28? assuming one is for the VP too and 6 maybe down for maintenance, are you gonna fly 20 as decoys simultaneously?

Gotta fly all the homies in for the rib cookoff and watermelon party on the White House lawn. They will have extended fuel capacity, so they can fly to Chicago on one tank of fuel. And they figure if they are going to land in Detroit, Gary, or some other cities then they need to be fully protected in case of RPG blasts.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
do we really need 28? assuming one is for the VP too and 6 maybe down for maintenance, are you gonna fly 20 as decoys simultaneously?

No, what they do (really) is fly helicopters back and forth from the White House to Andrews AFB many times each day so the terrists won't know if the President is on board. It takes a ton of helicopters to sustain any sustained activity involving helicopters as helicopters need tons of maintenance. And, yes, I am particularly proud of the previous sentence.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: da loser

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Damn that is a ton of change for a single helicopter. Other than benefits like flying farther and faster (+ communications), I wonder if it would be cheaper to just crank out a bunch more replicas of what there is now and whenever he flies have at least a half dozen lookalikes going around as decoys!

you realize that's not possible right?

Are there no other models like that in service elsewhere? Give them a paintjob and off to the races?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
If it puts people to work in the US, I'm all for it.

So if they spent the $11 billion to hire 100 people to dig ditches and 100 more to fill them up, you'd be all for it?

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
If it puts people to work in the US, I'm all for it.

So if they spent the $11 billion to hire 100 people to dig ditches and 100 more to fill them up, you'd be all for it?

Yep, assuming I were one of the lucky diggers.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Triumph
What a waste. $11B for 28 helicopters is $392 million for each chopper. That could buy three F-22 Raptors, when distributing R&D costs over each unit. I'm sorry, but the president's life just isn't worth that much money.

Depends, what if Biden and Obama go down? Is 392 million worth not having Nacy Pelosi as President? :Q

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: maddogchen
do we really need 28? assuming one is for the VP too and 6 maybe down for maintenance, are you gonna fly 20 as decoys simultaneously?

Gotta fly all the homies in for the rib cookoff and watermelon party on the White House lawn. They will have extended fuel capacity, so they can fly to Chicago on one tank of fuel. And they figure if they are going to land in Detroit, Gary, or some other cities then they need to be fully protected in case of RPG blasts.

Wait....what? Let's play a game: count the number of racist things wrong with this sentence...?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: maddogchen
do we really need 28? assuming one is for the VP too and 6 maybe down for maintenance, are you gonna fly 20 as decoys simultaneously?

Gotta fly all the homies in for the rib cookoff and watermelon party on the White House lawn. They will have extended fuel capacity, so they can fly to Chicago on one tank of fuel. And they figure if they are going to land in Detroit, Gary, or some other cities then they need to be fully protected in case of RPG blasts.

Wait....what? Let's play a game: count the number of racist things wrong with this sentence...?

I count six!

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: maddogchen
do we really need 28? assuming one is for the VP too and 6 maybe down for maintenance, are you gonna fly 20 as decoys simultaneously?

Gotta fly all the homies in for the rib cookoff and watermelon party on the Black House lawn. They will have extended fuel capacity, so they can fly to Chicago on one tank of fuel. And they figure if they are going to land in Detroit, Gary, or some other cities then they need to be fully protected in case of RPG blasts.

Wait....what? Let's play a game: count the number of racist things wrong with this sentence...?

I count six!

Make that seven. Meant to put that in the first post. My bad.

Thanks for confirming your intent! Your racist "jokes" are not funny, and they are not welcome here. Your posts fall below the acceptable P&N standard. That's pretty hard to do. Consider this a warning, your last. Next time you get a vacation.

Perknose
Senior AT Mod

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
If it puts people to work in the US, I'm all for it.

Well this may sound stupid to you. But what if we took that Money . And the money were going to throw at A few Rich banks . Just so they can cut liquidity.

Hows About we put that money into an alter modern Monual Rail High speed electomag.
With 4 lanes at least on mains. And thousands of spurs were smaller units operate . Just like today But 10,OOOx more effficient. You would have differant spur usage and a network that would take years to build Employing millions . State Owned . Usage taxes. Brings invest back . Lets not forget what built this country. To many times the ans. ie right in front of you.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Triumph
What a waste. $11B for 28 helicopters is $392 million for each chopper. That could buy three F-22 Raptors, when distributing R&D costs over each unit. I'm sorry, but the president's life just isn't worth that much money.

Depends, what if Biden and Obama go down? Is 392 million worth not having Nacy Pelosi as President? :Q

*shudder*

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
If it puts people to work in the US, I'm all for it.

So if they spent the $11 billion to hire 100 people to dig ditches and 100 more to fill them up, you'd be all for it?

Yep, assuming I were one of the lucky diggers.

You assume that the diggers are getting much more than minimum wage. The diggers will get about $8/hr. Most of the $11 billion is going into the hands of the contractor who pays several thousand dollars each for 200 shovels, kicks back a fair chunk to the sponsoring politicians "campaign fund" and then pockets the rest.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
If it puts people to work in the US, I'm all for it.

Well this may sound stupid to you. But what if we took that Money . And the money were going to throw at A few Rich banks . Just so they can cut liquidity.

Hows About we put that money into an alter modern Monual Rail High speed electomag.
With 4 lanes at least on mains. And thousands of spurs were smaller units operate . Just like today But 10,OOOx more effficient. You would have differant spur usage and a network that would take years to build Employing millions . State Owned . Usage taxes. Brings invest back . Lets not forget what built this country. To many times the ans. ie right in front of you.

What the fuck just came out of your mouth?

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
do we really need 28? assuming one is for the VP too and 6 maybe down for maintenance, are you gonna fly 20 as decoys simultaneously?

It kind of gets complicated. For example if Bush is flying from Washington DC to LA on Air Force One. Usually when Marine One flies there is at least 1 decoy of the same type. There is also some times several helicopters in the air with security. If the helicopter is forced down for whatever reason a security team can rapidly get on the ground with the president. So just flying from the White House to Andrews can involve sometimes over 4+ helicopters. Now the President Boards Air Force One. Waiting for him in LA is several more presidential helicopters. So basically you could easily have 10+ helicopters tied up just for a simple trip from the East coast to the West coast on both sides of the coast. Say the next day the president is going on a flight to Asia stopping in Japan, Korea and then China. Ahead of time Presidential helicopters will be flown on C-17s or C-5 to the countries ahead of time where the president will be stopping at. You can very easily go through 20+ helicopters from the Presidential Marine unit with literally helicopters scattered around the globe.

Also wherever the President is there is multiple helicopters always on alerts status that literally can take off when minutes in the event of a nuclear attack. Even when the president is Washington you would probably need to have 3-4 helicopters on constant standby fully fueled ready to go.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Triumph
What a waste. $11B for 28 helicopters is $392 million for each chopper. That could buy three F-22 Raptors, when distributing R&D costs over each unit. I'm sorry, but the president's life just isn't worth that much money.

Depends, what if Biden and Obama go down? Is 392 million worth not having Nacy Pelosi as President? :Q

That's another thing Obama has stolen out of the Bush playbook. Have someone completely abhorrent in the chain of command so you dont get offed.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Triumph
What a waste. $11B for 28 helicopters is $392 million for each chopper. That could buy three F-22 Raptors, when distributing R&D costs over each unit. I'm sorry, but the president's life just isn't worth that much money.

Depends, what if Biden and Obama go down? Is 392 million worth not having Nacy Pelosi as President? :Q

That's another thing Obama has stolen out of the Bush playbook. Have someone completely abhorrent in the chain of command so you dont get offed.

Seeing that Pelosi was in the exact same spot in the line of succession under Bush and neither Bush nor Obama had/have any say over it I don't follow. Okay, I guess Bush had a lot to do with Pelosi becoming Speaker.