UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (15) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1977192  
Subject: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 12:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 43
The price tag, meanwhile, has nearly doubled since 2001, to $396 billion. Production delays have forced the Air Force and Navy to spend at least $5 billion to extend the lives of existing planes. The Marine Corps--the cheapest service, save for its love of costly jump jets (which take off and land almost vertically) for its pet aircraft carriers--have spent $180 million on 74 used British AV-8 jets for spare parts to keep their Reagan-era Harriers flying until their version of the F-35 truly comes online. Allied governments are increasingly weighing alternatives to the F-35.

But the accounting is about to get even worse as concern over spending on the F-35 threatens other defense programs. On March 1, if lawmakers cannot reach a new budget deal, the Pentagon faces more than $500 billion in spending cuts in the form of sequestration, which translates into a 10% cut in projected budgets over the coming decade. Two years ago, the White House predicted that those cuts would be so onerous to defense-hawk Republicans that they would never happen. But the GOP is now split, with a growing number of members who are more concerned about the deficit than defense.

"We are spending maybe 45% of the world's budget on defense. If we drop to 42% or 43%, would we be suddenly in danger of some kind of invasion?" asked Representative Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican and part of a new breed of deficit hawks who talk of spending as a bigger threat than war. "We're bankrupting our country, and it's going to put us in danger."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136312,00....

We hear a lot about keeping the US SAFE. I think it is the wrong word. We should be focused on keeping the US STRONG.

It was not weapons that enabled the US to win World War II. It was the strength of our economy and the character of our people.

We should find a better way to spend $396 billion dollars.

Peter
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cjb44 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1860885 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 12:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Actaully the $396 billion is for 2,457 fighter jets not one according to the link. And that does include undercoating and one year free X/M Radio. So it's a pretty good deal.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wzambon Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1860902 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 1:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It was not weapons that enabled the US to win World War II. It was the strength of our economy and the character of our people.

Well... you are correct in a certain sense, but your statement is incomplete.

It was our strong economy that enabled us to win WWTwice.

But we didn't lob refrigerators and radios at the Germans and Japanese.

Our strong economy and resource base enabled us to quickly produce a superior military that dropped bombs, flew fighter planes and cranked out ships at a prodigious rate.... and that's the proximate cause of their defeat.

We outproduced armaments.

As for the F-35, it may be a superior weapon. But it also is having an impact on spending in other areas of defense. And its expensive cost will have a negative impact on our economy.... yes, that thing that enables us to produce the bombs, tanks, planes and ships.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eatenbybears Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1860906 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It was not weapons that enabled the US to win World War II. It was the strength of our economy and the character of our people.

But when WW2 occured, the country was in depression, unemployment was through the roof, the economy was nearly in stop mode

Bears

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 99lashes Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1860907 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 2:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
We should find a better way to spend $396 billion dollars.

Peter


I hear the FBI is digging for Jimmy Hoffa in yet another location, perhaps their budget could use some infusion. Finding Hoffa's body is more important to the safety of the USA right?

A few more Solyndra's?

Ya think?

99

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1860908 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 2:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
wz We outproduced armaments.

Of course.

To be more specific: it was not the weapons the US had BEFORE THE WAR which counted.


And its expensive cost will have a negative impact on our economy.... yes, that thing that enables us to produce the bombs, tanks, planes and ships.

If the F-35 cost us nothing, one could argue that we are stronger having them in the arsenal. But, as is the case, spending money on the F-35 (which seems ill-suited to fighting terrorists) means that the overall economy is weaker, well that is just a stupid thing to do.

Peter

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1860930 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 2:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"It was not weapons that enabled the US to win World War II. It was the strength of our economy and the character of our people.

We should find a better way to spend $396 billion dollars."



Heh heh...we spent what would be a trillion dollars `to develop the atom bomb that shortened the war by at least a year and saved a million lives - mostly ours.....and a million or more Japanese who would have died, maybe 2 or 3 million of them.

We spent what would be billions building the GATO class submarine and sinking the Japanese shipping, insuring they got almost no raw materials to build their war weapons.

We spend what would be billions building 10,000 plus bomber airplanes and 30,000 fighter aircraft....the Hellcat wiped out the zeroes.....


When we went into Iraq, the F-117 stealth bomber, developed for billions of dollars, wiped out the enemy defenses....and we liberated Kuwait....


The M1 tank, which costs billions to make, wiped out the best Soviet tanks the Iraqis had......with almost no loss of US lives.....


You seem to forget that the world is not a 'la la let's all live in peace world'.


You've still got 30,000 troops on the South Korea/North Korea border.....and have had since the mid 1950s since that war never ended, and the NORKS now have atomic weapons and threaten daily to use them. Don't you listen to the news?

You've got nutcases in Iran rushing to develop nukes so they can deliver a 'decisive' blow to the 'west'.

Wow....you mean that $396 billion doesn't provide for tens and tens of thousands of high paying jobs? JObs with skills? Jobs that keep single parents with kids with enough money to pay the bills and raise the kids? And pay taxes to fund the 'infrastructure' of the governent?

What would you do with the money? Give it to welfare weenies and queenies to sit on the butts, have even more kids they can't afford to support, and buy drugs to kill the time between getting their welfare and foodstamp checks?



t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1860931 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 2:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If the F-35 cost us nothing, one could argue that we are stronger having them in the arsenal. But, as is the case, spending money on the F-35 (which seems ill-suited to fighting terrorists) means that the overall economy is weaker, well that is just a stupid thing to do.

We have far more to worry about than terrorists. But if you want to think of it like that, then consider this: most strike aircraft used to provide close air support were designed in the 70's or earlier.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1860963 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 5:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
TD1 most strike aircraft used to provide close air support were designed in the 70's or earlier.

Think drones.

How long do you imagine an F-35 can hang around a battlefield waiting to be needed?

Peter

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FibreglassTrout Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1860967 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 5:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
"We are spending maybe 45% of the world's budget on defense. If we drop to 42% or 43%, would we be suddenly in danger of some kind of invasion?" asked Representative Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican ...

This is a line of thinking I particularly welcome. Our defense spending is ridiculous, and fraught with plenty of waste and pork fat. It's nice to see the tide turning away from the notion that defense spending is untouchable.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1860988 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 8:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Think drones.

How long do you imagine an F-35 can hang around a battlefield waiting to be needed?


You can't replace a live pilot with a drone (yet). The UCAS (X-47B) is only a demonstrator. The real ones won't be ready for a while yet.

http://www.popsci.com/category/tags/x-47b

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1860995 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 8:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
TD1 You can't replace a live pilot with a drone (yet).

I'm not sure what this means. Do you think a Predator could hit an enemy position during a fight?

The context is fighting terrorists. The weapons merchants would like us to believe there are other kinds of threats but there aren't any.

Peter

Print the post Back To Top
Author: emtwo Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1860997 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 8:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Jesus H. Christ FT...where the hell you been?

Welcome Back!!

v/r

Michael

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1860998 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/19/2013 8:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm not sure what this means. Do you think a Predator could hit an enemy position during a fight?

Predators carry, what? Two Hellfires? Reapers are better but are still limited to maybe 2 JDAMs. Reapers also cost ~$39M vs. ~$47M...for an F-16 (a far more capable platform).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1861102 of 1977192
Subject: Re: $396 billion for a fighter jet Date: 2/20/2013 11:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
TD1 Reapers are better but are still limited to maybe 2 JDAMs. Reapers also cost ~$39M vs. ~$47M...for an F-16 (a far more capable platform).

I believe the pertinent cost comparison is to the F-35: $161 million per if all 2457 aircraft are delivered.

But more importantly a drone can hang around for a while which is impossible for a fighter jet.

Peter

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (15) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement