Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[IMG]http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20110113/capt.photo_1294932877377-1-0.jpg?x=213&y=142&xc=1&yc=1&wc=410&hc=273&q=85&sig=q3onsyej27HX0oVFhudvbw--[/IMG]

What is 382BILLION divided by 2,334?

More than Big Al makes in a year, and still just barely enough for the US to build "the latest and greatest".

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110113/pl_afp/usmilitaryaerospacef35_20110113153609]F-35 looking more like white elephant - Yahoo! News[/url]

I won't ever understand how this program cannot be put on hold for 4 years, and see where the economy is then. We are not talking about research to maintain our edge, we aren't talking about shoring up a weak spot or creating a defense against China's latest and greatest, we aren't talking about replacing planes that are falling out of the sky. We are simply talking about ongoing defense spending that is out of control and needs to be SLLLOOOOOWWWWWEEEEED down.

It's defending programs like these that make republicans look stupid. We can defend our nation, but we shouldn't put it in the poor house for the General's new toy.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

Trying to crush important programs like this is what makes democrats look stupid.

This aircraft will replace many old ones....commonality in components = mammoth cost savings, its going to save us a lot of money in the long run. We're going to be able to eliminate up to three different + types of aircraft when the F-35 goes online.
Some of the technology its replacing is over 40 years old.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;777790]Trying to crush important programs like this is what makes democrats look stupid.

This aircraft will replace many old ones....commonality in components = mammoth cost savings, its going to save us a lot of money in the long run. We're going to be able to eliminate up to three different + types of aircraft when the F-35 goes online.
Some of the technology its replacing is over 40 years old.[/quote]
Just a note, I'm not a democrat. Spending 382 Billion (156Million per plane) is OVERKILL. That 40 yr old technology has been upgraded and is currently capable of defending against any current (and reasonably foreseeable) threat.

We spend more on defense than the combined defense expenditure of the next 5 closest competitors, and its rationale like above that enable rampant military spending.

Ask yourself this, how much do you spend a year on home security systems? Even include your percentage of local and state police through taxes. Is it more than your house payment or rent? More than your yearly health expenditures (including health insurance and tax subsidies to your local hospital)?

Fact of the matter is that while having a defense that can protect the US is important, the military has been built up far beyond a point that any legitimate threat to the US country would require.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;777643][IMG]http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20110113/capt.photo_1294932877377-1-0.jpg?x=213&y=142&xc=1&yc=1&wc=410&hc=273&q=85&sig=q3onsyej27HX0oVFhudvbw--[/IMG]

What is 382BILLION divided by 2,334?

More than Big Al makes in a year, and still just barely enough for the US to build "the latest and greatest".

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110113/pl_afp/usmilitaryaerospacef35_20110113153609"]F-35 looking more like white elephant - Yahoo! News[/URL]

I won't ever understand how this program cannot be put on hold for 4 years, and see where the economy is then. We are not talking about research to maintain our edge, we aren't talking about shoring up a weak spot or creating a defense against China's latest and greatest, we aren't talking about replacing planes that are falling out of the sky. We are simply talking about ongoing defense spending that is out of control and needs to be SLLLOOOOOWWWWWEEEEED down.

It's defending programs like these that make [B]republicans look stupid[/B]. We can defend our nation, but we shouldn't put it in the poor house for the General's new toy.[/quote]

Last time I checked we had a democrat in office and the dems had control of congress. So I guess Obama and friends look just as stupid or could we say look like an ASS. LOL. As far as the cost goes I really don't know if its worth the cost or not. I think it would take a bunch of research on the topic to form that opinion but both parties are responsible for the spending on defense.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

from Wikipedia, but you certainly can find other current docs for proof:
[QUOTE]The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending and is over six times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). [B]The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending[/B] (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).[30][31][32][/QUOTE]

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=firstdown;777800]Last time I checked we had a democrat in office and the dems had control of congress. So I guess Obama and friends look just as stupid or could we say look like an ASS. LOL. As far as the cost goes I really don't know if its worth the cost or not. I think it would take a bunch of research on the topic to form that opinion [B]but both parties are responsible for the spending on defense.[/B][/quote]

Fair enough. Blame 'em both

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=firstdown;777800]Last time I checked we had a democrat in office and the dems had control of congress. So I guess Obama and friends look just as stupid or could we say look like an ASS. LOL. As far as the cost goes I really don't know if its worth the cost or not. I think it would take a bunch of research on the topic to form that opinion but both parties are responsible for the spending on defense.[/quote]

Funny how you seem to pick and choose when both sides are responsible for something.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

We could probably cut military spending by 25% by just cutting the waist. My buddy operates a tug boat for the military and the waist he tells me about is just crazy.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=Mattyk;777808]Funny how you seem to pick and choose when both sides are responsible for something.[/quote]

I was just pointing out that its not just a rep. problem as he stated. Both parties are guilty of spending and waisting our money and I say that all the time. I'm tired of all the waisted money from both parties. I don't pick and choose on that issue.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

Me personally, scrap the jet and give the military a pay raise.

On the other hand I firmly believe that No piece of equipment shuld be more than 50 years old. It's a tough balancing act.

If they do roll this out and it can replace more than 1 type aitrcraft and is upgradeable for about 50 years then do it. If this jet is a one trick pony then it isn't worth it. For the amount of money it should be able to manuever, dogfight, spy, bomb, and be stealthy and do all of it as good as or better than anything else out there.

I haven't read up on it so I am not up to speed on it.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

When considering technology upgrades or the lack of, you have to consider the airframes and speed and range of the aircraft its replacing.
The F-35 blows all of them away in that respect.
You can stick a new avionics box in an A-10 but you cant makes its radar signature less than that of a Wal-Mart.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;777796]Just a note, I'm not a democrat. Spending 382 Billion (156Million per plane) is OVERKILL. That 40 yr old technology has been upgraded and is currently capable of defending against any current (and reasonably foreseeable) threat.[/quote]Outside of Reagan's buildup, much of our defense technology hasn't had a major upgrade.

[quote]We spend more on defense than the combined defense expenditure of the next 5 closest competitors, and its rationale like above that enable rampant military spending.

Ask yourself this, how much do you spend a year on home security systems? Even include your percentage of local and state police through taxes. Is it more than your house payment or rent? More than your yearly health expenditures (including health insurance and tax subsidies to your local hospital)?

Fact of the matter is that while having a defense that can protect the US is important, the military has been built up far beyond a point that any legitimate threat to the US country would require.[/quote]No problem with killing the F-35B, don't see a huge need for VTOL fighters anyway. This will save a good chunk of $$$.

AW is right, commonality in logistics and training will save billions in the long run. Also, not sure if you've seen this:

[URL="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-xx.htm"]Chinese Stealth Fighter / J-X / J-XX / XXJ / J-12 / J-13 / J-14 / J-20[/URL]

Also, the last thing you kill is R&D on advanced technology, that's what keeps us safe. We are vastly outnumbered by the Chinese and if we sit back and let them catch us technologically, we are in dire straits. We can have economic issues we need to address, but at the end of the day the thing that secures our freedom is that we've got by far the biggest stick. If we lose that, within a few decades the US will cease to exist as we know it today.

Don't buy the left-wing hype on the defense budget, we are currently spending less than 4% of GDP on defense, and the defense budget creates hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs, in addition to the folks in the military.

You should read this:
[URL="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/us-defense-spending-the-mismatch-between-plans-and-resources"]U.S. Defense Spending and Budget: The Mismatch Between Spending and Resources | The Heritage Foundation[/URL]

The real question that needs to be asked is why the U.S. budget has increased by over 18% in two years under Obama and a Dem controlled Congress. We also need to address the spiraling costs of SS, Medicare, and interest on the debt before we go slashing defense procurement to dangerous levels.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;777815]You can stick a new avionics box in an A-10 but you cant makes its radar signature less than that of a Wal-Mart.[/quote]I don't care how big the radar sig is...the A-10 is just too cool. Nothing like a tank with wings.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;777801]from Wikipedia, but you certainly can find other current docs for proof:[/quote]Also read this:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China]Military budget of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

China is spending approximately 2.5% of GDP on its military build up, which has been very aggressive over the last decade. Also check the table at the bottom of the article for raw numbers on military hardware and troop levels. After reading this, if you think we need to kill the F-35.....you must be a liberal. (think Jeff Foxworthy, LOL).

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;777817]I don't care how big the radar sig is...the A-10 is just too cool. Nothing like a tank with wings.[/quote]

150% agree. Not to mention that every dang system is redundant. Take out an engine we got another! Blow the radar system, we got another. The Warthog is Awesome!

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

To get our budget in line, we need to look at everything, that includes defense, and social services.

I looked at the stats on the Wiki article, but let me ask you this: how are those 8000 tanks getting to our soil (or Japans for that matter).
You want to have concern about Chinese developments, look at their anti aircraft carrier missile development - THAT threatens our regional influence (not our homeland security mind you). Show me a country that is developing a stealth mega-fortress troop carrier that can land 10000+ troops on mexican or canadian soil with no warning, and I will genuinely believe in the need for a full scale replacement of our jet fighter corps but you can't, now or in the next 10 years.

Yes China has advanced stealth fighters (in a few years) but you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech. No where did I say I was against an R&D budget, BUT 2,334 new planes is not an R&D budget, it is a full scale replacement. You do that when the budget is in the black OR when your current equipment is on it's last legs. Ours has proven it's not. (for the record, I was in the military in 1991-1996, no conversation here is meant to demean the soldiers that use our equipment, only the political bosses that spend with reckless abandonment and playing on citizen fears to justify their position)

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

CRedskinsRule wrote: [COLOR="Red"]you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech.[/COLOR]

This would imply a conflict with China, which is plausible.
So lets say we have a C-5 and C-17 lifeline to Japan/Korea from Hawaii.
How do we protect them over the ocean?

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

From SS33's article on Chinese stealth:

[QUOTE]Considering China’s records in combat aircraft development, a project like the J-12 may prove challenging. It will involves technology advancement in a number of fields including materials, high-performance aviation engine, electronics, flight control software, and stealth technologies. A project of this scale will also require huge amount of investment and considerable knowledge of complex project and manufacturing management. While China may be able to benefit from some “off-the-shelf” dual-use technologies available in the commercial market, it will almost definitely seek assistance from its traditional military technology suppliers such as Russia and Israel. However, none of these two countries possess the experience of developing an advance fighter of this class.

Brigadier Govinda M. Nair wrote in 2005 that "A stealth fighter, XXJ, equivalent to the US F-22 is likely to be inducted by 2015." According to the PLA's Deputy Commander He Weirong, the Chinese fifth generation fighter was expected to be in service with the PLAAF by 2017-2019. In August 2008, a RAND study raised questions about the ability of US tactical aircraft, including the F-22, to counter large numbers of Chinese aircraft in a Taiwan Strait scenario.[B] Though at that time the F-22 was assumed to be able to shoot down 48 Chinese Flankers when outnumbered 12:1 without loss[/B], this did not take into account less-than-perfect US beyond-visual-range performance, or possible deployment of a new Chinese stealth fighter around 2020 or 2025.

In a speech delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates (Economic Club of Chicago, 16 July 2009), he stated "by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. [B]Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens.[/B] The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese..."[/QUOTE]

Seriously, we can't put the production on hiatus for 3 to 4 years, when China (our main theoretical war risk) won't have any until 2020 or after?

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;777830]CRedskinsRule wrote: [COLOR="Red"]you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech.[/COLOR]

This would imply a conflict with China, which is plausible.
So lets say we have a C-5 and C-17 lifeline to Japan/Korea from Hawaii.
How do we protect them over the ocean?[/quote]

Hmmm? how does a stealth fighter with limited range reach our planes over the ocean? Further, see the dogfight expectation and comparable quantities available of fighters. In 2020, they may send their force of 50 valuable fighters to attack a C-5 or C-17 lifeline that is guarded by a United States Carrier battle group or two with electronic surveillance monitoring support from Japanese and US naval bases. Maybe they even down one? maybe, at the expense of their full production run? Is it a war scenario, I suppose. Is it one that we can't reasonably defend against with our current assets and reasonable intelligence data, I doubt it

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;777826]To get our budget in line, we need to look at everything, that includes defense, and social services.

I looked at the stats on the Wiki article, but let me ask you this: how are those 8000 tanks getting to our soil (or Japans for that matter).
You want to have concern about Chinese developments, look at their anti aircraft carrier missile development - THAT threatens our regional influence (not our homeland security mind you). [B]Show me a country that is developing a stealth mega-fortress troop carrier that can land 10000+ troops on mexican or canadian soil with no warning, and I will genuinely[/B] believe in the need for a full scale replacement of our jet fighter corps but you can't, now or in the next 10 years.

Yes China has advanced stealth fighters (in a few years) but you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech. No where did I say I was against an R&D budget, BUT 2,334 new planes is not an R&D budget, it is a full scale replacement. You do that when the budget is in the black OR when your current equipment is on it's last legs. Ours has proven it's not. (for the record, I was in the military in 1991-1996, no conversation here is meant to demean the soldiers that use our equipment, only the political bosses that spend with reckless abandonment and playing on citizen fears to justify their position)[/quote]

When a country makes a landing on another nation that actually has the means to fight back its never going to be by surprise. Yes we have done so to smaller nations but thats only because they did not have the army to really fight back a landing. Like I said earlier I think we could reduce our spending on the military by just cutting waist.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;777826]To get our budget in line, we need to look at everything, that includes defense, and social services. [/quote]Agree 100%, but the F-35 as a replacement for the F-16s and F-18s is the wrong place to look.

[quote]I looked at the stats on the Wiki article, but let me ask you this: how are those 8000 tanks getting to our soil (or Japans for that matter).
You want to have concern about Chinese developments, look at their anti aircraft carrier missile development - THAT threatens our regional influence (not our homeland security mind you). Show me a country that is developing a stealth mega-fortress troop carrier that can land 10000+ troops on mexican or canadian soil with no warning, and I will genuinely believe in the need for a full scale replacement of our jet fighter corps but you can't, now or in the next 10 years. [/quote]Those 8000 tanks could pretty easily get to India, S. Korea, or into the Middle East without much resistance from anyone. And yes, the anti-aircraft carrier missle is a major concern. However, complete air dominance would allow us to destroy any of those missle sites if necessary.

[quote]Yes China has advanced stealth fighters (in a few years) but you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech.[/quote]you actually fight them with a better fighter, like the F-35 and advanced missle tech.

[quote]No where did I say I was against an R&D budget, BUT 2,334 new planes is not an R&D budget, [B]it is a full scale replacement[/B]. You do that when the budget is in the black OR [B]when your current equipment is on it's last legs.[/B] Ours has proven it's not. [/quote]The F-16 & F-18s were put into service in the late 70s early 80s, they are reaching the end of their lifecycle.

You put the program on hold for 3-4 years, what happens to all the jobs this program creates? What costs will be associated with re-starting the program? Does there need to be better oversight of these large gov't procurment programs, absolutely. But again, there also needs to be better oversight of SS & Medicare. We need to look at fixing SS & Medicare and repealing Obamacare immeidately as the price tags and financial sustainment models of these programs are way out of whack and will be pushing the US far more quickly into insolvency than the F-35 program.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

Yea sure, if your crystal ball knows that China is the only one to be concerned about.
Meanwhile the airframes on our A-10s, F-16s and Harriers get older and older.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;777851]Agree 100%, but the F-35 as a replacement for the F-16s and F-18s is the wrong place to look. [/quote]

Sorry but it's as good a place as any. 92(hence the AH ref) MILLION dollars a piece and rife with overruns/waste etc makes this the perfect place to start. Cut the production to 500 till 2020, we still will have more than the world combined.

[quote]Those 8000 tanks could pretty easily get to India, S. Korea, or into the Middle East without much resistance from anyone. And yes, the anti-aircraft carrier missle is a major concern. However, complete air dominance would allow us to destroy any of those missle sites if necessary.[/quote]
[IMG]http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/september11/images/neareast.jpg[/IMG]

Given that the distance from China's border to Tehran is 3000 miles (or the distance from DC to SF approximately), I don't think we are going to see a vast tank column headed that way anytime soon. No those tanks are going to guard a border to their north where another military power just might be more of a concern to china. IF though an 8000 tank strong column approached Iran (through India who just happens to have nuclear bombs) I think they just might meet a little resistance before our military was called upon.

[quote]you actually fight them with a better fighter, like the F-35 and advanced missle tech.[/quote]

again given that China won't have any fighters produced before 2020, and we will have 1100, I think we are ok.

[quote]The F-16 & F-18s were put into service in the late 70s early 80s, they are reaching the end of their lifecycle.
[/quote]
Just an FYI:
[url=http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?contentBlockId=a81f336f-49c8-48ec-9a02-4e5d6190d1fc]Aero-News Network: The Aviation and Aerospace World's Daily/Real-Time News and Information Service[/url]
[quote]
You put the program on hold for 3-4 years, what happens to all the jobs this program creates? What costs will be associated with re-starting the program? Does there need to be better oversight of these large gov't procurment programs, absolutely. But again, there also needs to be better oversight of SS & Medicare. We need to look at fixing SS & Medicare and repealing Obamacare immeidately as the price tags and financial sustainment models of these programs are way out of whack and will be pushing the US far more quickly into insolvency than the F-35 program.[/quote]
Here is the first (and only) argument for me which is semi valid. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with military necessity, or the value of the program, but simply a logistical question. Now if this is the rationale for keeping this program going, I am assuming you were in favor of the various auto maker bailouts through the years, and 0 unemployment policies that say it's in the States interest to make sure all it's citizens have high paying specialized jobs?

Budget realities should dictate, when our defense is not at stake. If we can't legitimately scale back this type of mammoth program when there is no real aggressor in the next few years than I would imagine we never will be able to.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;777863]Yea sure, if your crystal ball knows that China is the only one to be concerned about.
Meanwhile the airframes on our A-10s, F-16s and Harriers get older and older.[/quote]

Did ya see the stat - the US and our allies account for [SIZE="3"][B][I][U]75%[/U][/I][/B][/SIZE] of all military spending in the world. Iraq had what was considered the best non-superpower armed forces. How did that work out for them?

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

Gulf war 1?
That was 21 years ago.......

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;777895]Gulf war 1?
That was 21 years ago.......[/quote]

Military intelligence is capable of basically estimating threats to our country. Right now, China would be considered the main war threat. But realistically, no "sane" country is purposefully going to pick a fight against us. I referenced Gulf War 1 because it was the last time any nation-state attempted to go head on against ours. Certainly any other nation-state outside of China, Russia (or in some bizarre, but theoretically possible, world calamity, Western Europe) would have about the same luck against our current military strength.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=firstdown;777847]When a country makes a landing on another nation that actually has the means to fight back its never going to be by surprise. Yes we have done so to smaller nations but thats only because they did not have the army to really fight back a landing. [B]Like I said earlier I think we could reduce our spending on the military by just cutting waist.[/B][/quote]

I can't cut my own waist, let alone sifting through the military bureaucracy to pin down what is waste and what is not. The way to trim govt is to take projects out of its hands. We don't need a leaner meaner govt approach, we need a Lap band surgical approach, cut it out, and make the system adjust to less demand.

Here is a good article on potential savings by trimming waste in the Defense budget.
[url=http://hpronline.org/arusa/defense-spending/]Defense Spending « The Harvard Political Review[/url]
I don't think 25% is realistic by cutting waste only.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;777885]Given that the distance from China's border to Tehran is 3000 miles (or the distance from DC to SF approximately), I don't think we are going to see a vast tank column headed that way anytime soon. No those tanks are going to guard a border to their north where another military power just might be more of a concern to china. IF though an 8000 tank strong column approached Iran (through India who just happens to have nuclear bombs) I think they just might meet a little resistance before our military was called upon.[/quote]Probably not, but China doesn't have to go through India. And if whatever the circumstance was that China was rolling tanks into the Middle East to control the oil supplies I don't expect they would have too much concern about or resistance from India without our involvement.

[quote]again given that China won't have any fighters produced before 2020, and we will have 1100, I think we are ok.[/quote]Given that we would be massively outnumbered in troops and tanks we would need all the air power we have. Also, actual delivery of the F-35 isn't scheduled until 2016.

[quote]Just an FYI:
[URL="http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?contentBlockId=a81f336f-49c8-48ec-9a02-4e5d6190d1fc"]Aero-News Network: The Aviation and Aerospace World's Daily/Real-Time News and Information Service[/URL][/quote]This reinforces my point that the F16 & F18s are very near the end of their life cycle and the F-35 production is needed for their replacement so we don't waste $$$ on a stop-gap measure.

[quote]Here is the first (and only) argument for me which is semi valid. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with military necessity, or the value of the program, but simply a logistical question. Now if this is the rationale for keeping this program going, [B]I am assuming you were in favor of the various auto maker bailouts through the years, and 0 unemployment policies that say it's in the States interest to make sure all it's citizens have high paying specialized jobs[/B]?[/quote]You know me better than that. The automakers should've went into bankruptcy to shed the bad labor deals that were crushing them and restructure their debt. If a state wants to implement some sort of 0 unemployment policy...well we both know they won't be solvent very long and will be like CA & NY, shortly hitting Uncle Sam up for a bailout.

[quote]Budget realities should dictate, [B]when our defense is not at stake[/B]. If we can't legitimately scale back this type of mammoth program when there is no real aggressor in the next few years than I would imagine we never will be able to.[/quote]Our defense is at stake. And by eliminating the F-35B (VTOL version, which I agree can be eliminated) there will be significant savings and rollouts to the AF & Navy will be faster.

BTW, This is a multi-year program and Secretary Gates has already improved oversight and withheld performace $$$ from the contractors. Again, no problem with killing the USMC version, but delaying or killing the F-35 is the wrong move. Let's say the costs increase to $ 350B for the program, and the planes are delivered over 10 years, we're looking at about $ 35B / yr.

What are some other things the Fed spends over $ 35B / yr on?
- Interest on the debt in 2009 - $ 187B / yr. Anything tangible, nope.
- Medicare & Medicaid - $ 676B / yr., some estimates are 20% is fraud, let's be conservative and say 10% is fraud, that's $ 67B / yr. Anything tangible here, nope just "waisted" (per FD) Fed $$$.
- Social Security - $ 678B / yr., let's say fraud there is at 5%, another $ 34B, more wasted Fed $$$.


How about these duplicate programs (as of 2005, it's certainly worse now):[LIST][*][B]342[/B] economic development programs;
[B]130[/B] programs serving the disabled;
[B]130[/B] programs serving at-risk youth;
[B]90[/B] early childhood development programs;
[B]75[/B] programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities;
[B]72[/B] federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;
[B]50[/B] homeless assistance programs;
[B]45[/B] federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations;
[B]40[/B] separate employment and training programs;
[B]28[/B] rural development programs;
[B]27[/B] teen pregnancy programs;
[B]26[/B] small, extraneous K-12 school grant programs;
[B]23[/B] agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics;
[B]19[/B] programs fighting substance abuse;
[B]17[/B] rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies;
[B]17[/B] trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements;
[B]12[/B] food safety agencies;
[B]11[/B] principal statistics agencies; and[*][B]Four[/B] overlapping land management agencies.[/LIST]

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;777903]Here is a good article on potential savings by trimming waste in the Defense budget.
[URL="http://hpronline.org/arusa/defense-spending/"]Defense Spending « The Harvard Political Review[/URL]
I don't think 25% is realistic by cutting waste only.[/quote]LOL, I know this wasn't your point, but from the article:

Congressman Barney Frank’s Sustainable Defense Task Force demonstrates the difficult choices required to truly reduce defense spending. Frank commissioned a review panel to suggest a number of significant cuts to American military capabilities. In June, the group recommended [URL="http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf"][COLOR=#bd1c1c]significant cuts[/COLOR][/URL] to American military capabilities. The task force’s proposals, in total, could reduce defense spending by $960 billion over the next ten years.

Barney Frank on cutting defense spending, the same guy that said the following about Fannie & Freddie:

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Oh yeah, since Frank's statement Fannie and Freddie cost taxpayers roughly $150 billion in the two years since they were nationalized.

Frank is a far left-wing buffoon! :laughing2

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;777908]Probably not, but China doesn't have to go through India. And if whatever the circumstance was that China was rolling tanks into the Middle East to control the oil supplies I don't expect they would have too much concern about or resistance from India without our involvement.[/quote]
any route China takes it's tanks to the Middle East, it's hitting resistance, Pakistan and India are both nuclear powers, Afghanistan, or the other northern "-stan" countries? Um if they get tank columns through there, well a 7-9 team will win it's division first! oh wait LOL

[quote]Given that we would be massively outnumbered in troops and tanks we would need all the air power we have.[/quote]
I think Russia would be willing to lend some tanks and troops to the cause if China did. But seriously, is there any expectation of this scenario, I don't think so. The reason China has 8000 tanks is because it shares a border with Russia, and those two don't like each other.

[quote] Also, actual delivery of the F-35 isn't scheduled until 2016.

This reinforces my point that the F16 & F18s are very near the end of their life cycle and the F-35 production is needed for their replacement so we don't waste $$$ on a stop-gap measure.[/quote] and yet it also shows my point that we could extend their life 10 years, reduce the initial production run and still be technologically ahead.

[quote]You know me better than that. The automakers should've went into bankruptcy to shed the bad labor deals that were crushing them and restructure their debt. If a state wants to implement some sort of 0 unemployment policy...well we both know they won't be solvent very long and will be like CA & NY, shortly hitting Uncle Sam up for a bailout. [/quote]
I know they were strawmen, and not very good ones either. Just making a point that maintaining jobs is not in and of itself a necessary government or DoD function.

[quote]Our defense is at stake. [/quote]
ultimately we will just disagree on this. Without that crystal ball AW mentioned I can no more prove we will survive with a 3-4 year hiatus, then you can prove that a hiatus would be a precursor to the collapse of the US and life as we know it.

[quote]And by eliminating the F-35B (VTOL version, which I agree can be eliminated) there will be significant savings and rollouts to the AF & Navy will be faster.[/quote]
Ending the B version would be a good start.

[quote]BTW, This is a multi-year program and Secretary Gates has already improved oversight and withheld performace $$$ from the contractors. Again, no problem with killing the USMC version, but delaying or killing the F-35 is the wrong move. Let's say the costs increase to $ 350B for the program, and the planes are delivered over 10 years, we're looking at about $ 35B / yr.

What are some other things the Fed spends over $ 35B / yr on?
- Interest on the debt in 2009 - $ 187B / yr. Anything tangible, nope.
- Medicare & Medicaid - $ 676B / yr., some estimates are 20% is fraud, let's be conservative and say 10% is fraud, that's $ 67B / yr. Anything tangible here, nope just "waisted" (per FD) Fed $$$.
- Social Security - $ 678B / yr., let's say fraud there is at 5%, another $ 34B, more wasted Fed $$$.


How about these duplicate programs (as of 2005, it's certainly worse now):[LIST][*][B]342[/B] economic development programs;
[B]130[/B] programs serving the disabled;
[B]130[/B] programs serving at-risk youth;
[B]90[/B] early childhood development programs;
[B]75[/B] programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities;
[B]72[/B] federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;
[B]50[/B] homeless assistance programs;
[B]45[/B] federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations;
[B]40[/B] separate employment and training programs;
[B]28[/B] rural development programs;
[B]27[/B] teen pregnancy programs;
[B]26[/B] small, extraneous K-12 school grant programs;
[B]23[/B] agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics;
[B]19[/B] programs fighting substance abuse;
[B]17[/B] rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies;
[B]17[/B] trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements;
[B]12[/B] food safety agencies;
[B]11[/B] principal statistics agencies; and[*][B]Four[/B] overlapping land management agencies.[/LIST][/quote]

ok, cut 'em all too, I am really an easy guy in this regard. I believe Govt has gotten way out of control, so much so that the politicians who think they know all the answers and end up simply spending more and more money.

Point of fact is if you are going to dent the massive govt bureacracy, you have to include the untouchables, Defense & social services

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

Also, thanks for the discussion to all, excellent points and thoughts.

Reminds me where at least a couple of China's tanks ended up - Tienanmen Sq.

Our ability for open discussion and debate is certainly worth defending, no question about that!

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;777919]Our ability for open discussion and debate is certainly worth defending, no question about that![/quote]And give me some F-35s and A-10s to defend it....YEEE-HAAAWWWW!!!!

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

You can not run a functional defense department that awards contracts only for the contracted company to turn around and revise their cost because their initial bid were massaged to make their bid more appealing (i.e. SS33's reference to 4% of GDP).

In the age of nuclear ICBM and dirty bombs F-35's won't make you more secure but it will drain your treasury. Suckers!

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

Just a quick follow-up, not F-35 program info, but great progress from a DoD R & D program.

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/20/raygun-breakthrough-revolutionize-naval-power/?test=faces]Breakthrough Raygun Could Revolutionize Navy's Weaponry - FoxNews.com[/url]

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

Raygun?
.......THAT'S what I'm talking bout'

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;779279]Just a quick follow-up, not F-35 program info, but great progress from a DoD R & D program.

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/20/raygun-breakthrough-revolutionize-naval-power/?test=faces]Breakthrough Raygun Could Revolutionize Navy's Weaponry - FoxNews.com[/url][/quote]

Cool stuff. I would wonder (star trek nerd talking now) if that same tech could be used to form a defensive ionized shielding around a ship. Shields up on the USS Enterprise. (also star wars in terms of the shield generators) Sci Fi leads the way!!!

Anyone click on the link about invisible tanks. Again thinking about movies and reality. In the Chicken Little movie, the aliens used paneling that mimicked the sky to hide their ships. Amazing that the exact same tech is being talked about for real life combat equipment. Wild!

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;779363]Cool stuff. I would wonder (star trek nerd talking now) if that same tech could be used to form a defensive ionized shielding around a ship. Shields up on the USS Enterprise. (also star wars in terms of the shield generators) Sci Fi leads the way!!!

[B]Anyone click on the link about invisible tanks[/B]. Again thinking about movies and reality. In the Chicken Little movie, the aliens used paneling that mimicked the sky to hide their ships. Amazing that the exact same tech is being talked about for real life combat equipment. Wild![/quote]Again, more cool stuff that will keep us decades ahead of the "bad guys". Kudos to DoD R & D.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;779383]Again, more cool stuff that will keep us decades ahead of the "bad guys". Kudos to DoD R & D.[/quote]
The invisible tanks actually are British/Swedish design. I certainly could see the Swedes wanting an invisible tank battalion. The thought of an invisible warthog though, awesome!

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;779390]The invisible tanks actually are British/Swedish design. I certainly could see the Swedes wanting an invisible tank battalion. The thought of an[B] invisible warthog[/B] though, awesome![/quote]And if they could find a way to make it stealth too.....that would be cooler than anything Tony Stark has.

Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!
 

China employs TopGun strategy in defense announcement:

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110131/ts_yblog_thecutline/chinese-air-force-drill-looks-awfully-similar-to-top-gun"]Chinese Air Defense Tests - WSJ[/URL]

Watch the WSJ side by side video. It's pretty astounding.