the only thing that makes no sense is your insistence that the clause ‘if those those funds end up “seriously” disrupting the entire fighter jet program’ is meaningless

the meaning is very clear and i’m not sure how you can pretend otherwise

> other than you are a current or former GE Employee posing to be an unbiased poster?

fortunately i’ve been around long enough and fought enough other fights that it’s clear i’m not on GEs payroll

> then you proceeded to follow around any posting I made on this site and try and pick it apart

then don’t give me anything to pick apart

namely editing articles such that their entire meaning is changed

> somehow continuing to avoid the fact that the F135 has MANY HOURS of testing on it and achieved every program milestone set for it

couldn’t have achieved EVERY milestone because it’s still in testing

> I do think the proposed A/F Tanker that has been stalled is necessary, since without it we have a modern warfighter that has ancient A/C fuel support? I would rather see funding of this critical program. That is why I am against funding of unnecessary elements such as the F22/F119, F136 and the VELO. What is your opinion on this?

the tanker program is independent of those other programs

the problem with going forword on KC-X isn’t financial, it’s legal and political

not to mention that F136 is such a small amount that it is basically a rounding error

BS

you said ‘veto if the F136 is included PERIOD’

he actually said ‘veto if the F136 is included AND it seriously disrupts the F-35 program’

that is a huge distinction

> The subcommitte tried to play a sleight of hand by fully funding the F-35 to justify inclusion of the F136

it wasn’t sleight of hand, it was doing exactly what Gates said, not disrupting the funding of the F-35

> Gates was clear that this is not fooling the administration (note that he wrote the note to Murtha AFTER the recommendation you refer to was made)

if he meant what you said, he would have said what you said ‘veto if the F136 is included PERIOD’

but that’s not what he said and words have meaning

he repeated it because while the proposal was for full funding, it wasn’t final and he wanted to ensure that they didn’t try to cut the F-35 program in committee

since a VERY similar edit to the very same article was made on the f135engine.com, it makes me think you are less a ConcernedCitizen than a PW shill

a very bad shill who should know better than to blatantly alter a story to fit your slant because you’re going to get called on it

if I were PW, I would fire you on the spot for a stunt like that

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63263-...

Gates said he’ll also recommend that Obama veto the bill if appropriators include money for a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, IF THOSE FUNDS END UP “SERIOUSLY” DISRUPTING THE ENTIRE FIGHTER JET PROGRAM.

since the funds came from outside the F-35 program, there will be no disruption of the f-35 program and thus there will be no veto

any credibility you had worked to build up just went byebye!

what an AMAZING edit job you did on that article

here’s what the article ACTUALLY says

see if you can spot the differences:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63263-...

> [[[Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he’ll recommend that President Barack Obama veto the 2010 defense spending bill if it includes funding for a]]] new presidential helicopter.

> Gates said he’ll also recommend that Obama veto the bill if appropriators include money for a [[[second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter]]], if those funds end up “seriously” disrupting the entire fighter jet program.

oh yes, let’s conveniently leave out the whole ‘if those funds end up “seriously” disrupting the entire fighter jet program.

and since the funds were added from outside the program, it won’t, so it’s a moot point, it’s not getting vetoed

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he’ll recommend that President Barack Obama veto the 2010 defense spending bill if it includes funding for a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

He made the threat in a letter sent Wednesday to Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee, and Bill Young (R-Fla.), the panel’s ranking member.

“The conference bill should not provide funding for weapons that are not working or are no longer needed,” Gates told the lawmakers.

The House included $560 million for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine, which is built by General Electric and Rolls-Royce. That engine is in direct competition with the primary engine built by Pratt & Whitney.

Gates recently stressed that fully funding the alternate engine will cost billions more over several years and that the engine currently in development is behind the primary engine by about three years.

First & foremost, the days of needing to point the nose of your aircraft at the enemy in order to shoot them down are long gone. MISSILES do the hard manuevering these days.

But even ignoring that most important truth…a COMBAT LOADED F-35A’s flight performance will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16″. Few COMBAT LOADED fighters can do that & not fighters built in the 1960s come even close.

Russia has NO jets that will have a positive kill ratio vs the F-35. The only Russia jet with any chance is the PAK-FA & it is still several years away from being operational. But, of course, defeating the PAK-FA is what the F-22 is for — the F-35 can more than handle anything else for quite some time to come.