Posted on 01/21/2010 11:31:48 PM PST by myknowledge
The Air Force is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on two fighter jets that probably will never be used to support troops on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Congress has decided to cap production of the F-22, removing funding for the fifth-generation fighter from the 2010 military budget. And the F-35 — also known as the Joint Strike Fighter — won’t be ready for prime time before 2013, according to the latest estimates.
Critics of the new fighters say they are too expensive and not needed in today's warfare, while proponents argue that the current aircraft are not as advanced as the F-22 and F-35, both of which would help the U.S. maintain air superiority for decades to come.
The programs have come under heavy criticism, mainly for cost overruns.
Each F-22 — there are about 140 of them assigned to six stateside bases — will have cost about $350 million under current estimates. The U.S. is awaiting delivery of roughly 50 more of them.
Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information and a vocal critic of both programs, predicts each F-35 might eventually cost almost $200 million.
Guy Ben-Ari, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the costs are "raising eyebrows left and right. At the end of the day, it comes down to resources, and they’re not endless."
Despite those concerns, the fighters’ advantages cannot be ignored, some officials say.
Maj. John Peterson, requirements officer for the F-35A at Air Force headquarters, said each fifth-generation fighter has four features that make it superior to fourth-generation models such as the F-16, F-15 and F/A-18. Some fourth-generation models might have some of the capabilities, but none has all four, he said.
Those four are the ability to evade enemy radar; maneuverability; the ability to take on varied tasks; and the ability to translate more data into usable information for the pilot.
A look at each aircraft:
F-22 Raptor
Christopher Preble, writing on the blog he maintains for the Cato Institute, said he believes the F-22 "likely never will" participate in actions over Iraq or Afghanistan. But Preble, director of foreign policy studies for the institute, said that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad aircraft.
"I have no reason to question the F-22's capability," he said in a recent telephone interview.
Ben-Ari, a member of CSIS’ Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group, agreed with that assessment.
He said the F-22 might be able to carry out missions to support ground troops, but said that other aircraft such as the F-16 and A-10 are better designed to do so. The F-22 is thought to be better suited for taking on enemy aircraft and anti-aircraft positions as opposed to enemy forces engaged with friendly troops on the ground.
But there is the cost factor.
Preble cited a Washington Post article that stated that the cost of flying an F-22 is about $40,000 per hour.
So using the F-22 for a mission that other aircraft could handle, Ben-Ari said, "would be in the same manner as a Lamborghini used to bring your kids to school. You could do it, but do you really need to?"
Maj. Clay Bartels, F-22 requirements officer for Air Force headquarters at the Pentagon, said he believes the F-22 could take on ground-support missions today if called upon. But he said its primary role — ensuring U.S. superiority in the skies — isn’t needed in today’s wars.
"Air superiority is achieved already," he said in a phone interview.
Supporters say the F-22 is so technologically superior to other fighters that it will use advanced detecting and targeting systems to take out enemy planes from miles away. In such cases, enemy planes might not have even known they were in a fight until it was too late.
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter
The Air Force expects to receive the first of its 1,763 aircraft in 2013 — if testing goes according to plan.
The Marine Corps recently took possession of the first versions of the F-35 from Lockheed Martin and has begun its own testing. Congress overrode Pentagon misgivings and decided to spend an additional $465 million on an alternative engine for the F-35.
The Air Force, which projects that the F-35 will make up half its fleet in 2025, is involved in a system development and demonstration phase that Peterson said is set to last until 2014.
Wheeler, who once worked for the General Accounting Office, said that means the service will have purchased a significant number of aircraft that haven’t been fully tested. And he said he believes too much of the current testing is in the form of simulated models and table-top theories. He said more tests must involve actually flying the F-35.
Peterson and Bartels said the F-35 and F-22 are designed to provide specific, complementary roles for the service. But they’re only part of the picture. The service projects that some of the current generation of fighters will be used for decades to come.
Ben-Ari said the Air Force needs to not only deal with conflicts today, but also plan for future ones. "For the missions we’re conducting today, the current fleet is capable," he said. "For future ones … I’m not so sure.
"You can’t just draw up a design for a new aircraft and produce it in six months," he said. "You’re hedging against future risk. No politician or military officer wants to be the one who, looking back through history, canceled a project or ignored a risk."
Drivel? That is impressive!
Ex SF before it was cool,( after the 82nd ) and committed a felony to do it, so I’ll put my bona fides against anyone my scally cap friend.
17 year old’s will forever be jamming up weapons, and some day, running batteries low. The new gun will jam too. The money is better spent, will save more lives, and kill more enemy.
The Abrams was the result of tankers pushing for 40 years for having the best battle tank AGAINST the Pentagon. Not a good example guy.
Predators were not wanted by the Air Force. Another bad example . Ditto the F-16. You don’t know your facts.
You do have something against troops getting anti IED vehicles. Money. You want to use it other places, even though tens of thousands of Americans are dead or wounded because, partly, the military spent the money other places.
“Me? I don’t carry water for anyone. You get thousands of patriotic Americans killed,” Bad sentence. I meant you as in command, bureaucracy. I didn’t mean you personally.
Back to topic.
What is fundamental is the disagreement on the zero sum of the budget. Defense spending isn't fixed but proposed in any budget. This can change yearly and all it takes is the decision to support an increase politically. Not at the expense of anything else. Think any politician would stand against it? I reject your assertion that to replace the rifle with a more reliable one necessitates a cut elsewhere. You have provided nothing that supports that contention.
Also, what we disagree on is good enough verses better. The testing on the rate of jams was not an insignificant point. A nearly seven fold increase in reliability saves lives. “The new gun will jam too” is an argument for bolt action rifles. Is that the standard? No, of course not. I have amply demonstrated the performance increase and you have shown nothing as to why it shouldn't be done.
17 year old’s may forever be jamming weapons but how would you like to be the 17 year old that did nothing wrong but still can't fire his weapon with the bad guy moving in? A weapon that across the board is more reliable is across the board a better selection.
I do not have anything against anti-IED vehicles. In fact, many advances have been made in that field since the start of the second gulf war including remote control gun platforms and newer vehicles such as the Cougar. But, MRAP’s are just part of the picture. Watching the “War Porn” threads here of Drones targeting insurgents emplacing IED’s show the overall need for an overall strategy to defeat this asymmetrical warfare. So you are incorrect here also.
From the over all thread, I support the most modern rifle, the best tank, the deadliest aircraft, the best trained soldier. To achieve that I would gut social spending, socialist give aways, and whatever shenanigans Washington is engaged in. The Abrams may have taken 40 years to get here, but it is here. Do you want to wait 40 years for it's replacement? Aren't you arguing for what might have been argued of the advantages of the M-60 over the M-1? Actually the example that you don't think is good is the one that shows the flaw in your reasoning. As for the F-16, I also don't know where you got that. The Air Force had a competition for it. I haven't heard that the Air Force didn't want the Predators. Why would they develop them if they didn't want them? There are UAV combat vehicles under development right now. Is this against the wishes of the Air Force and what can you show me that it is?
Back to you.
F16,Colonel Boyd. Famous inter Air Force struggle. AF wanted heavy, no gun, two crew, twin engine.
The Air Force didn’t develop the UAV’s. The CIA did and then the AF brass got nervous and saw someone poaching on their rice bowl.
You’re not getting a dime out of the welfare state. Matter of fact, less.
The comments about the decades it takes is a reflection of the Pentagon, Generals not supporting the troops. As a historical example, at the beginning of WWII, General Marshall went to FDR and asked permission to retire half of all Generals and Colonels, and got it. He said they wanted to fight the last war and were obstacles to progress.
We’ve done nothing but fight in basically third world. We should have weapons and a military to match what we fight. The Army, especially, has had the most causalities, and done the most fighting and should receive the most money. That is were, generally, Americans fight and die.
M4 is good enough. Troops would be better supported with basic air and helicopter and small unit UAV, interpreters, and social political intelligence. F22 won’t help the bulk of 17 year olds in central asia, south america, central and latin america, Africa, Indonesia, Haiti,......That is where we have, are and will be fighting.
I say give the money and weapons to those that are doing the fighting.
MRAP require bigger bombs, means more time burying them, bigger parties, more people talking, bigger budgets, more disturbance of the soil, etc. On our side it not only means less killed, but more patrols, with better moral, so more aggression and higher threat to the enemy. I’m sure Vietnam era vets wish they had the then common South African MRAPs. Too bad our General staff, and defense industry took fifty years and in the Marines case, about 4,000 Marines and a order from Gates to get with the program.
Everybody likes UAVs now, just like the AF now loves the F-16, which it fought. What happens is the old Generals retire and the young Majors become old Generals. Then they become the problem. Old old dynamic in miliaries. For example, you get military’s like the post WW One French that tried to build the super trench, the Maginot Line and then their German counterparts that threw out the old and went with the new mobile armor and mechanized concepts.
You should watch the five part series with General Keene and how intellectually unprepared the Pentagon was. He couldn’t answer why. Decent guy, four star and you could tell he was embarrassed for his institution.
By the way the military that I think has a good, lean, quick weapons system is the Israelis. They can not afford our bloat, sloth, slowness. They mess up one time, and they are history.
Here’s the way I see it. A Patriot missile battery costs a few million (single digits). An F-22 costs about $140 million. What’s the marginal benefit? For one additional F-22, we could turn most strategic areas in Iraq (Baghdad, Basra, Kirkuk) and pretty much all of the Syrian border into a fortress against whatever Soviet junk the Syrians are flying, and whatever held-together-with-duct-tape old fighters the Iranians are flying. IMO the marginal benefits are much more in favor of other things than additional F-22s.
That said, I fully support removing the restrictions on foreign sales of F-22s, and allowing Japan and Australia to buy them.
(check your first paragraph. It’s all over the place)
You don’t get it. In almost all those examples, a small core of basically in the field officers, had to fight AGAINST their own organization, which is the MRAP story, which has cost 25,000 causalities, meanwhile the same organization is often, like in the M4 fight, dicking around and pushing weapons down with marginal increased effectiveness, while telling troops in the field to go to salvage yards and weld on steel to their HMVEES for a counter to the enemy’s main, number one effective weapon.
You don’t seem to get it. The M4 fight is of marginal improvement, you want it. The M1, UAV, F16 were not marginal improvement, they were game changers, and they were either fought against, or late, by the the organization, as a whole, that should of brought them them out. As those troops that spent years with the M4 and no MRAPS what they wanted. I bet it wasn’t a new, un field tested carbine.
Heck ask the troops now what they want, but tell it real world, not your post ‘we are going to cancel Welfare’ and you’ll have everything fantasy;, that they have to trade off, either or, and I bet a new carbine, won’t be high up.
You like to cherry pick.
This started with the notion of Air Superiority and the need for the F22, as say spending 20 billion on MRAPS against IED’s which have killed or wounded 25,000 Americans. I think the Marines, for instance, which have lost 5,000 men, would of better spent the Osprey money on MRAPS, or in your often argument, should wait, yet fight and die, and some day in the mythical future, decades will get money striped politically from WIC, or Section 8. You have said, repeatedly, that you want the very best, even though waiting for the best from the procurement bureaucracy is interminable, and you want it after some sort of major political change, and I suppose while the troops are in the field wanting the good instead of waiting for the perfect years off. What ever.
The first paragraph from the last post isn't all over the place. Print it off and have help reading it if you need to. It is a refutation of your last post. And, a continued rebuttal of your somewhat skewed view of weapons development.
Second. What I ‘get’ is your unsupported and unsubstantiated backing of a weapon with a serious flaw. One stoppage every two magazines is a problem. Real world. The troops are saying this real world. The test was done because of this, real world. The improvement for something like the XM-8 isn't marginal. That is fact,not opinion which is the ONLY thing you have offered and has been repeatedly shown to be faulty.
Read up on the XM-8 because your assertion that it it new and untested is wrong. It is a legacy and a result of modernization of a existing rifle. As for the weld your own armor on a humvee, you are like the mainstream media still showing 2003 Gitmo pictures. That is no longer the case and you know it. Whole companies sprang up to up armor humvees. Remote control turrets and shielded turrets came into being. So much for that.
The M-4 point is finished. After numerous posts without a coherent response of opposition, you have conceded that point by your lack of adequate response.
Moving on. MRAP’s are good. But they are not the only answer. The use of IED’s is the current asymmetrical warfare method chosen by Jihadists. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq and in the next conflict that method might not be used at all. The military has to plan for other type conflicts too. Incorporation of MRAP technology in all future vehicles is wise but not at the sacrifice of other needs. For example I read that some MRAP type vehicles are of limited use because of weight due to their inability to cross weight restricted bridges or to go where there is a lack of roads. One size does not fit all.
Now I have also explained the budgetary process several times. I have also differentiated between cutting budgets, proposing budgets, and the pie metaphor and what I would like to do. You are making up the ‘cancel welfare’ by confusing and blending the two. In reality you have been spanked so often on this thread now you are simply devolving into the “I know you are, but what am I” type posting. I really don't have time or the interest for that.
Your final paragraph is simply whining. Your contention that the Osprey money should have been spend differently comes out of left field and now results in moving the goal posts simply because you have lost on all points and will now keep shifting the frame of the argument until you think you won't lose anymore. (You will, of course, unless you improve your arguments.) Now you have begun mischaracterizing my arguments and re framing them to make yourself feel better. The fantasy that I have argued for future dream systems as opposed to fieldable weapons now is purely your invention.
All in all you have failed epically. Since you are now down to unsupported nonsense, if you want to continue this please support your arguments with a reference quote and, if possible, a link to support your assertions. At least I will have facts to discuss.
Good luck.
B4L8r
What a dolt your are.
However, the discrepancy of 575 stoppages between the Summer and Fall 2007 tests of the M4 had Army officials looking into possible causes for the change such as different officials, seasons, and inadequate sample pool size.
Who puts 'heavy lubrication on a M16/M4?
Everyone, everyone knows that causes them to jam, dust or no dust."differences in the two tests because they were conducted at different times of the year with different test officials, Brown said. Test community officials are analyzing the data to try to explain why the M4 performed worse during this test. Weapons officials pointed out that these tests were conducted in extreme conditions that, did not address “reliability in typical operational conditions,” the test report states.
Speaking of tests not in real world conditions, how's the Artic tests go? (Oh, we're just fighting in dust chambers with heavy lubrication storms. Right.)
The Army wants its next soldier weapon to be a true leap ahead, rather than a series of small improvements, Brown said.( Gee, I think I said something about the new gun being only, if only and suspect at that, a marginal improvement )
Col. Robert Radcliffe, head of the Directorate of Combat Developments for the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga.,(What would a Ft. Benning infantry Colonel know, right?) said, For now, he said the Army will stick with the M4, because soldier surveys from Iraq and Afghanistan continue to highlight the weapon’s popularity among troops in the combat zone.( Poor stupid combat infantry men in dusty, hot, Iraq/Afgan just don't know their business, right?)
“The M4 is performing for them in combat, and it does what they needed to do in combat,” Radcliffe said." Is this what you bring to game? Lame.
Try to leave the immaturity out of it. It diminishes your argument to begin with and you have enough problems. Plus, over the series of posts on this thread you have nothing to crow about. Now that you finally fixed on something you wish to debate, I want to make sure the goal posts are fixed before I spend any more time on you.
Regardless of what else the thread started on, and where you wandered to, you now wish to debate the M4 and whether it has a problem in field use and whether there is a suitable rifle with a marked improvement in reliability that can be issued to the troops. In other words, is the M4 good enough for the troops or isn't it and is there a ready replacement? Is that what we are now going to debate?
If so, then we can debate. Thanks for giving references. It shows you are trying.
This debate is about you, and the quality of your thinking. The M4 is just a case study, a subject.
I don’t speak for anyone but myself, so it would be my opinion wouldn’t it? ( Duh.)
Hey, you have no cred. I do. I can use it as I like. You want to go the 82nd then weasel your way up Smoke Bomb Hill to then 7th, then you can have an ‘appeal to authority’.
You’ve been ignorantly, shallowly, babbling on about something I do know, personally, professionally, even in an engineering way that was so basically, fundamentally stupid, that quite frankly I was a bit out of sync with the dumbness. But, now I’m starting to get where you are coming from. And I’m happy to work this over on you.
Anyways, I’ll give you a bit more rope to show your lack of weapons expertise, depth and judgment.
" In other words, is the M4 good enough for the troops or isn't it?"
Yes, it is. The troops themselves say so, the Infantry command says so, and as do I based on my own personal experience
I told you that at the beginning.
You don't have any experience and have read, and not closely, some short reporting on the fairly basic subject. This tells me about the, ahem, quality of your thinking.
No, the debate isn’t about me because so far I haven’t mentioned a thing about me. Therefore your utter failure to form a coherent argument is purely your responsibility. The thread stands for itself.
You have no idea about my history, experience, education, or breadth of knowledge. I have preferred to talk about the topic. Turning this into a purely personal attack shows how poorly this exchange is going for you on the quality of your ideas, or the lack of thought put into them.
Name calling is a grade school tactic. Not for men. You have reached adult status in age based on your claims to be ex military so that makes you an adult male. But should this belittling behavior continue you will not rate being called a man.
I have let slide your behavior once and it was not me that hit the abuse button on post 39. I would have left it up there to show others your immaturity and to let them know why I called you out on it.
Your characterizations on my arguments are nothing. They mean nothing. Now, are you wishing to discuss the M-4 and it’s problems currently or not? I don’t waste time with misbehaving children inhabiting grown bodies.
Oookaayy, then. Describing you as you are is not an attack. For example, you might be short. I know its rough here in the internet hinterlands. You can do it.
"Now, are you wishing to discuss the M-4 and it’s problems currently or not? "
Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, Commander of Program Executive Office Soldier( the command that is responsible for equipping soldiers)said...
, "The Army wants its next soldier weapon to be a true leap ahead, rather than a series of small improvements."
Col. Robert Radcliffe
Head of the Directorate of Combat Developments, Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Ga.
," said the Army will stick with the M4, because soldier surveys from Iraq and Afghanistan continue to highlight the weapon’s popularity among troops in the combat zone. The M4 is performing for them in combat, and it does what they needed to do in combat.”
I have already asked you if you wish to engage in a debate on the M-4. Now, this is a repost of the scope of the debate I asked you if you wanted to engage in:”Regardless of what else the thread started on, and where you wandered to, you now wish to debate the M4 and whether it has a problem in field use and whether there is a suitable rifle with a marked improvement in reliability that can be issued to the troops. In other words, is the M4 good enough for the troops or isn’t it and is there a ready replacement? Is that what we are now going to debate?”
Do you agree to discuss that in a mature manner or not? If you do then we can move on to issues at hand.
Just in case the Army has the fix in on the M-4...Let's go to the Navy, those famous coatholders and bootlicks for the old Green Machine...
"In a recent survey conducted by the Center of Naval Analysis, 917 Soldiers who have used the M-4 carbine in combat reported an 89-percent overall satisfaction in the weapon. A total of 734 or 80 percent reported confidence that the M4 will fire without malfunction in combat; and 81 percent did not experience a stoppage while engaging the enemy. Three percent who experienced a stoppage reported an inability to engage the enemy during a significant portion or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage, while only 1 percent, or 12 Soldiers felt the M-4 should be replaced."
Do you wish to discuss the topic as I have defined it or not? I have now specifically defined the issue twice for you. Ignore it this time and it is your third strike and I leave the kids table and go back to the adult one.
Back to the old "authoritiative" dust test you love so much. And, who knew....
"Soils and dust collected from areas of military activity in Iraq differ significantly from the material used in chamber-testing procedures for weapons and are unlike natural geologic materials to which weapons are exposed during most training environments in the U.S.
• The properties of the commercial dust used in chamber testing of small-arms are chemically inert, consisting of 99.7% silicon dioxide (i.e. quartz). By comparison, the concentration of quartz in Iraqi dust and soil samples ranges from 35.4 to 89.8%.
• The concentration of reactive chemicals, primarily salts and carbonates, is high in all Iraqi dust and soil samples and extremely high in many. Several of these reactive chemical components have the potential to corrode metal parts. The dust used in chamber testing of small-arms contains none of the reactive components identified in the Iraqi dust samples.
• The average particle size of dust encountered in military operations in arid regions is much smaller than laboratory-generated quartz surrogate dust used in sand-and-dust chamber testing of weapons. Army experience has clearly shown that natural dusts have a significant impact on weapons operation and other mechanical equipment.
• Laboratory testing has shown that three gun lubricants react with Iraqi dust, forming aggregates that increase the average size of particles in the sample. The extent of the reaction varies among dust samples with different chemical compositions and grain sizes. In general, dusts higher in salts and carbonates, and with smaller particles, are most reactive when mixed with the lubricants.
• The average particle size of dust taken from tactical vehicles in Iraq was significantly smaller than the particle size of bulk soil samples. Further, the samples from tactical vehicles had a higher concentration of reactive carbonates and sulfates than the particle size of bulk soil samples. This reinforces that current chamber test methodology misrepresents real-world conditions.
• The character of the soils and dust collected from areas of military activity in Iraq is greatly different from the material used in current weapons testing procedures. Current procedures employ laboratory generated dust that is 99.7% silicon dioxide (i.e. quartz), contains no salt or reactive chemicals, and contains coarser particle sizes than most of the Iraq samples. Use of this material cannot simulate conditions in Iraq that have contributed to the weapons failures.
Identifying the complete cause of gun-jamming problems experienced in Iraq must include testing with actual dust, or the equivalent, using conditions representing the areas where the problems occurred. Differences in bulk soil samples compared with dust found in military vehicles operating in Iraq verify that operational considerations must be included in designing tests to evaluate and resolve this issue. Moving vehicles, and the weapons carried therein, act as natural dust traps for the smallest, and most potentially reactive, dust particles.
Given the importance of Iraqi dust and its potential to impact military equipment and operations, desert environmental parameters are critical to design tests that reflect real-world conditions—especially conditions most likely to compromise use of critical equipment in harsh desert environments.
Previous work by King et al. (1999, 2004) demonstrated that each type of equipment test has a unique set of environmental conditions that are critical to the success of that test. Further analyses of the chemical properties of Iraqi dust are recommended to evaluate potential for corrosion and related impacts to military equipment. This study quantified physical and chemical characteristics of dust derived from soils sampled in Iraq. This dust was found to be highly variable based on its origin and significantly different from the quartz materials used for standard chamber dust tests of military equipment. Further, the high concentrations of reactive chemicals and high volumes of fine silt and clay materials were observed to react with chemicals found in gun lubricants.
Final Project Report: Geochemical and Physical Characteristics of Iraqi Dust and Soil Samples
Dr. Eric McDonald
Desert Research Institute, Earth and Ecosystem Sciences
Mr. Todd Caldwell
Desert Research Institute, Earth and Ecosystem Sciences
Dr. Tom Bullard
Desert Research Institute, Earth and Ecosystem Sciences
Dr. Russell Harmon
Environmental Services Division, Army Research Office
Mr. Graham Stullenbarger
U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground-Natural Environments Test Office
Mr. Larry Havrilo
U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground-Natural Environments Test Office
Mr. Dave Pond
U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground-Yuma Test Center
Mr. Byron R. Cooper
U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground-Yuma Test Center
Lt. Col. Dan Gilewitch, Ph.D.
United States Military Academy-West Point
Col. Chris King, Ph.D.
United States Military Academy-West Point Dr. Lillian Wakely Engineer Research and Development Center Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory Ms. Julie Kelley Engineer Research and Development Center Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory
You didn't read my last post or chose to ignore it. I told you, you were starting to debate yourself and I wouldn't join in until we could determine what the topic was finally going to land on so you would stop moving the goal posts when getting spanked.
Since you are not an honest,nor honorable adult male, this is the third strike. You have failed in every aspect and there is no point to begin a debate over facts when there is no indication that they matter to you. It is now time to end this. You do not rate further time. Had you been an honest man long ago on this thread, we could have discussed the test, other tests, the need for an improved rifle or the lack of need, what type rifle, what caliber, etc.
Instead, after enduring everything from your baseless accusations of the pulled post 39 through you infantile name calling and personal smears, I find you completely worthless. That is your karma to bear.
If anyone else reads this and wants to discuss or debate the merits of the M-4, should it be replaced, it's defects or reports of its problems, I will continue the discussion with them.
However, for you it is back to the kids table. You struck out.
Baby.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.