F-35 video.
 

What an awesome piece of tech this bird is.
Cant wait for this thing thing to go operational.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&feature=player_embedded]F-35B Ship Suitability Testing - YouTube[/ame]

Re: F-35 video.
 

Yay! 200 Million dollars ea. Thank heavens we don't have budget issues!!!

Re: F-35 video.
 

LOVE it!

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;927475]Yay! 200 Million dollars ea. Thank heavens we don't have budget issues!!![/quote]

Amazing how there's always money for stuff like this eh?

Re: F-35 video.
 

Surprising we have it, with the dollars we throw at ridiculous giveaway programs such as benefits for...illegal aliens.....etc

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=Hog1;927501]Surprising we have it, with the dollars we throw at ridiculous giveaway programs such as benefits for...illegal aliens.....etc[/quote]

ugh...

typical mind numbing response. How bout we get rid of "ridiculous giveaway programs" that waste much money, and over the top 100's of million dollar jets. If we did both, rather than use one to justify the other, maybe we could get our budget where we could make sensible judgements on all accounts.

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;927531]ugh...

[B]typical mind numbing response[/B]. How bout we get rid of "ridiculous giveaway programs" that waste much money, and over the top 100's of million dollar jets. If we did both, rather than use one to justify the other, maybe we could get our budget where we could make sensible judgements on all accounts.[/quote]

What does one have to do with the other? Are you an advocate of overrunning this....overburdened country with endless reward programs for those that mass to our shores and borders.....illegally?
Perhaps your mind is .....still numb?
BTW, I could get behind some defense cuts as well...probably.

Re: F-35 video.
 

I think CRed's point was that both the endless reward programs and the 200 Million dollar jets should be cut.

Excessive defense spending and excessive entitlement programs are making it impossible to climb out of debt. Despite being deep in debt, we continue to spend like there is no tomorrow.

It's a sweet plane, no doubt ... but, really, where is the need? Keep the plans, run the prototype, keep testing to see if we can upgrade, and, if we get into a war where we need the next generation of fighter, then build (yes, yes ... I know there would be lag time). Right now, we have more than 3 times as many planes as the next largest air force (China) and more than twice as many aircraft as China & Russia (the 3rd largest air force) combined. [url=http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp]Total Aircraft by Country[/url]

We already have the numbers and tech advantage by a large, large margin. Is now the time to be guilding the weaponry lily? Which makes you better prepared for a real, old style war? The hottest tech or the strongest economy? I would suggest the second.

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;927537]I think CRed's point was that both the endless reward programs and the 200 Million dollar jets should be cut.

Excessive defense spending and excessive entitlement programs are making it impossible to climb out of debt. Despite being deep in debt, we continue to spend like there is no tomorrow.

It's a sweet plane, no doubt ... but, really, where is the need? Keep the plans, run the prototype, keep testing to see if we can upgrade, and, if we get into a war where we need the next generation of fighter, then build (yes, yes ... I know there would be lag time). Right now, we have more than 3 times as many planes as the next largest air force (China) and more than twice as many aircraft as China & Russia (the 3rd largest air force) combined. [url=http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp]Total Aircraft by Country[/url]

We already have the numbers and tech advantage by a large, large margin. Is now the time to be guilding the weaponry lily? Which makes you better prepared for a real, old style war? The hottest tech or the strongest economy? I would suggest the second.[/quote]

This.

I am not big on social spending either but, from JR's website:

Defense Spending
Data through 2011; shown in USD
US - $692,000,000,000
China - $100,000,000,000
UK - $73,746,170,000
Japan - $70,495,000,000
Russia - $56,000,000,000

So, if we accept that the UK and Japan would aid us in time of a war with either Russia or China, that puts our combined spending at nearly 6 times the combined spending of our two most likely enemies. But keep in mind that China/Russia have a large portion of their money tied up in protecting their shared border.

Re: F-35 video.
 

But...but...we have to have to be able to fight 6 un-winnable wars all at once.

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=Mattyk;927492]Amazing how there's always money for stuff like this eh?[/quote]


[IMG]http://r0.sgsr.us/imgs/250/b5729.gif[/IMG]

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;927537]I think CRed's point was that both the endless reward programs and the 200 Million dollar jets should be cut.

Excessive defense spending and excessive entitlement programs are making it impossible to climb out of debt. Despite being deep in debt, we continue to spend like there is no tomorrow.

It's a sweet plane, no doubt ... but, really, where is the need? Keep the plans, run the prototype, keep testing to see if we can upgrade, and, if we get into a war where we need the next generation of fighter, then build (yes, yes ... I know there would be lag time). Right now, we have more than 3 times as many planes as the next largest air force (China) and more than twice as many aircraft as China & Russia (the 3rd largest air force) combined. [URL="http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp"]Total Aircraft by Country[/URL]

We already have the numbers and tech advantage by a large, large margin. Is now the time to be guilding the weaponry lily? Which makes you better prepared for a real, old style war? [B]The hottest tech or the strongest economy? I would suggest the second.[/B][/quote]

Yea....I got it Joe, but thanx for the....insight nonetheless. FWIW, I would choose the second as well.
BUT, my original....mind numbing point. Absurd, irresponsible social spending and Military spending (although possibly over the top) are incomparable. One actually gains you something and the other digs and ever deepening hole.

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=Hog1;927671]Yea....I got it Joe, but thanx for the....insight nonetheless. FWIW, I would choose the second as well.
BUT, my original....mind numbing point. Absurd, irresponsible social spending and Military spending (although possibly over the top) are incomparable. [B]One actually gains you something and the other digs and ever deepening hole.[/B][/quote]

Neither gains you anything, and both put you deeper in holes. If a bully can beat you up with a set of brass knuckles, the fact that they are diamond studded doesn't add to the deterrent. We have jet fighters, which if we had maintained production instead of randomly saying they are at the end of their design span, would give plenty of deterrent for the value. Adding a one size fit all fighter, doesn't suddenly make our stick stronger, but it makes our economy less sound.

Another question I have, is although we hope not to lose any, certainly we could expect to lose some, if we got into a real dog fight of a war, how many of these would we be expected to manufacture, and at what cost to our economy?

Social spending in and of itself is not wrong, just as there is necessary defense spending, but a 200million fighter is as over the top, as a social net protecting illegal aliens. (i might fall into the statue of liberty's camp and say that a social system which protects the weakest among us, is better than a designer fighter jet)

[quote]

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
[B]"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
[/B]I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus, 1883
[/quote]

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote]With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"[/quote]

You know ... instead of the huddled masses and wretched refuse, couldn't we ask for everyone else's rich, smart and well-dressed masses?

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=Hog1;927671]Yea....I got it Joe, but thanx for the....insight nonetheless. FWIW, I would choose the second as well.
BUT, my original....mind numbing point. Absurd, irresponsible social spending and Military spending (although possibly over the top) are incomparable. One actually gains you something and the other digs and ever deepening hole.[/quote]

We are, as usual, probably closer in agreement than what seems to be coming across. Absurd spending, whether defense or social digs a hole. The hole is slightly different, one is made of - to use CRed's analysis - diamond studded brass knuckles and the other is made of a burgeoning dependent population.

I understand your point in that, absurd, irresponsible social spending essentially begets more absurd, irresponsible social spending. Meanwhile, absurd, irresponsible defense spending gets you a bunch of diamond studded brass knuckles.

The only point I make is that absurd, irresponsible spending - whether defense or social - is wrong and the F-35 is simply not a necessary expense.

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;927695]You know ... instead of the huddled masses and wretched refuse, couldn't we ask for everyone else's rich, smart and well-dressed masses?[/quote]

I think those are the "storied pomp" -- aren't you glad that doesn't have an I?

Re: F-35 video.
 

With respect to the [URL="http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Weapons.pdf"]cost[/URL] of each plane:

[QUOTE]In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million [flyaway cost] for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.15 million ($9,732.8/32) if its share of RDT&E spending is included [weapon system cost].[/QUOTE]


I will say this about the F-35, it's gorgeous to look at. I just want to pet the plane and feel my hands against its beautiful skin.

Re: F-35 video.
 

No doubt. It is a beauty of a bird. Betcha' that mofo is a f'ing blast to tool around in.

Re: F-35 video.
 

Some of you guys that are going emo over the dollar amounts are not looking at the big picture this aircraft is supposed to be part of.
The spending now is about [I]not[/I] spending in the future.
The military wants fewer variants of aircraft.
This drives down training, maintenance and armament costs drastically.
Our aircraft carriers used to operate seven different kinds of aircraft.
They are close to getting that down to three.
Huge cost savings there.

Something else to consider aircraft wise.
Our B-52H fleet which was built in 1962 is still going strong and is slated to carry on until 2045.

Re: F-35 video.
 

The concept of "budget" means nothing to our gov't. Literally it means nothing. To us, the word means spending money strategically relative to the amount of money we have or can reasonably expect to have. When operating on a "budget" you and I can decide that our 6 year old Honda Accord gets the job done and there is no need to EOL it. However the gov't actually knows no actual limit to the amount of money it can have. Dems want to take more money from the electorate and Pubs would rather raid funding for other less "useful" programs. But neither is actually serious about making value judgments on the actual products and services they buy with our money. I'm all for having the best military by a wide margin but isn't there a point when good enough is good enough? Will this plane actually save any more lives than the plane it replaces?

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;927720]Some of you guys that are going emo over the dollar amounts are not looking at the big picture this aircraft is supposed to be part of.
The spending now is about [I]not[/I] spending in the future.
The military wants fewer variants of aircraft.
This drives down training, maintenance and armament costs drastically.
Our aircraft carriers used to operate seven different kinds of aircraft.
They are close to getting that down to three.
Huge cost savings there.

Something else to consider aircraft wise.
Our B-52H fleet which was built in 1962 is still going strong and is slated to carry on until 2045.[/quote]
Perhaps...but efficiencies couldn't have been gained via some other less expensive initiative? Like maybe just not having 7 different kind of aircraft on each? If this bad boy replaces several other old and deteriorated models maybe it is worth it but was this the best route or just the coolest and most politically expedient solution?

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;927698]We are, as usual, probably closer in agreement than what seems to be coming across. Absurd spending, whether defense or social digs a hole. The hole is slightly different, one is made of - to use CRed's analysis - diamond studded brass knuckles and the other is made of a burgeoning dependent population.

I understand your point in that, absurd, irresponsible social spending essentially begets more absurd, irresponsible social spending. Meanwhile, absurd, [B]irresponsible defense spending gets you a bunch of diamond studded brass knuckles. [/B]

The only point I make is that absurd, irresponsible spending - whether defense or social - is wrong and the F-35 is simply not a necessary expense.[/quote]
Fair enough....and on another note if any of you have...NOT been to an airshow with a significant military presence performing. You...Really need to treat yourself...

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=FRPLG;927723]Perhaps...but efficiencies couldn't have been gained via some other less expensive initiative? Like maybe just [COLOR="Red"]not having 7 different[/COLOR] kind of aircraft on each? If this bad boy replaces several other old and deteriorated models maybe it is worth it but was this the best route or just the coolest and most politically expedient solution?[/quote]

Which ones do you suggest we get rid of?

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=FRPLG;927721]The concept of "budget" means nothing to our gov't. Literally it means nothing. To us, the word means spending money strategically relative to the amount of money we have or can reasonably expect to have. When operating on a "budget" you and I can decide that our 6 year old Honda Accord gets the job done and there is no need to EOL it. However the gov't actually knows [COLOR="Red"]no actual limit to the amount of money it can have.[/COLOR] Dems want to take more money from the electorate and Pubs would rather raid funding for other less "useful" programs. But neither is actually serious about making value judgments on the actual products and services they buy with our money. I'm all for having the best military by a wide margin but isn't there a point when good enough is good enough? Will this plane actually save any more lives than the plane it replaces?[/quote]

Really?
Then how come at one point my unit ran out of money to buy something as simple as toilet paper?
How come my pay was delayed three weeks because we topped out?

[QUOTE=Alvin Walton;927769]Really?
Then how come at one point my unit ran out of money to buy something as simple as toilet paper?
How come my pay was delayed three weeks because we topped out?[/QUOTE]
because while our government may spend like crazy they simply are not good managers of money, likewise if your unit's financial section failed to account for enough necessities like toilet paper than they were apparently not very good money managers either. Finally, every military person knows that their pay is part of the cat and mouse game the congress plays nearly every year as sides fight for things like shiny new planes or hefty social programs.

[QUOTE=Hog1;927740]Fair enough....and on another note if any of you have...NOT been to an airshow with a significant military presence performing. You...Really need to treat yourself...[/QUOTE]

I agree with that. Growing up I was Civil Air Patrol and we would help with crowd control at Andrews air shows. Pretty impressive machines indeed.

[QUOTE=Alvin Walton;927720]Some of you guys that are going emo over the dollar amounts are not looking at the big picture this aircraft is supposed to be part of.
The spending now is about [I]not[/I] spending in the future.
The military wants fewer variants of aircraft.
This drives down training, maintenance and armament costs drastically.
Our aircraft carriers used to operate seven different kinds of aircraft.
They are close to getting that down to three.
Huge cost savings there.

Something else to consider aircraft wise.
Our B-52H fleet which was built in 1962 is still going strong and is slated to carry on until 2045.[/QUOTE]

Can you say what the projected cost savings are? if a B52 fleet can be maintained for 80 years and we can safely say that other countries are 4-6 years from having a technological equivalence and far longer to reach a numerical equivalence, then we certainly could have extended maintainence on our existing fleet for a few years while our government gets its house in order.

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;927776]Can you say what the projected cost savings are? if a B52 fleet can be maintained for 80 years and we can safely say that other countries are 4-6 years from having a technological equivalence and far longer to reach a numerical equivalence, then we certainly could have extended maintainence on our existing fleet for a few years while our government gets its house in order.[/quote]

Your first question - I have no idea.
You statement after that.... I view it like software.
It becomes obsolete the day you release it.

The B-52 remains in the inventory for a two basic reasons AFAIC.
One is that it continues to get new electronics and technology every year.
The other is that it was an an amazingly good design, so much so that some say it was a fluke. ( a good fluke)

[QUOTE=Alvin Walton;927779]You first question - I have no idea.
You statement after that.... I view it like software.
I becomes obsolete the day you release it.[/QUOTE]

so we shouldn't worry about hard costs because of unknown soft savings? that sounds like the type of math that leaves republicans screaming at social welfare spending. And I believe we are only building 32 of these so my guess is that we aren't replacing all the 7 types anytime soon given the numbers from JRs link.

I don't get the software analogy at all.

Re: F-35 video.
 

In the era of intercontinental ballistic missiles and star wars like air defense systems do we even need war planes?

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=saden1;928000]In the era of intercontinental ballistic missiles and star wars like air defense systems do we even need war planes?[/quote]

:laughing2

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;927537]I think CRed's point was that both the endless reward programs and the 200 Million dollar jets should be cut.

[B]Excessive defense spending and excessive entitlement programs are making it impossible to climb out of debt.[/B] Despite being deep in debt, we continue to spend like there is no tomorrow.

[/quote]

Completely agree with the above and I'd say they are two sides of the same coin. Excessive entitlement programs benefit the lowest echelon, while excessive defense spending is essentially a windfall for the elite. Of course, i'm factoring in our defense policy as a whole, not just ridiculously priced jets. Who doesn't benefit from either? The middle class! Yay for working, legally, for a living! Woohoo...etc.

Re: F-35 video.
 

Not that I agree with the purchasing of the jets, but lets not act like the middle class gains nothing. A big part of these contracts is creating jobs for everyone from aerospace engineers to someone that manufactures sheet metal. Is may not be the payout some people see, but it's a paycheck. I'd rather see us find alternate way to create jobs, but there are positives that come from this for thousands of people.

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;927720]Some of you guys that are going emo over the dollar amounts are not looking at the big picture this aircraft is supposed to be part of.
The spending now is about [I]not[/I] spending in the future.
The military wants fewer variants of aircraft.
[B]This drives down training, maintenance and armament costs drastically.[/B]
Our aircraft carriers used to operate seven different kinds of aircraft.
They are close to getting that down to three.
Huge cost savings there.

Something else to consider aircraft wise.
Our B-52H fleet which was built in 1962 is still going strong and is slated to carry on until 2045.[/quote]Great post.
I'll add this link for detailed info on the F-35 JSF: [URL="http://www.jsf.mil/"]F-35 Lightning II Program[/URL]

There are weapons systems/programs that can be eliminated, this ain't one of them. Want to cut back on personnel, ships, tanks, there are certainly efficiencies there, but air superiority is the cornerstone of dominating any battlespace.

As for CRed's analogy of "diamond studded brass knuckles", I'd liken the JSF program as more of bringing a couple of AR-15s and SIG P229s to a knife fight.....and if my kid is the one going into the knife-fight I want him to have the greatest advantage technically/fiscally possible.

To touch on saden's point, ultimately I don't want my kid in the knife fight at all, I was lasers hitting stuff from 50+ miles away and advanced drones doing the fighting for us. But that takes military R&D investment. I've posted similar info in the past, but a vast majority of the DoD budget goes to personnel and their support costs, not R&D or weapons systems.

and I agree 100% with Hog1, military spending gets us something tangible, military hardware that will last 40-50 yrs. From a tangible perspective entitlements are strictly an expense to the federal budget.

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=Daseal;928128]Not that I agree with the purchasing of the jets, but lets not act like the middle class gains nothing. A big part of these contracts is creating jobs for everyone from aerospace engineers to someone that manufactures sheet metal. Is may not be the payout some people see, but it's a paycheck. I'd rather see us find alternate way to create jobs, but there are positives that come from this for thousands of people.[/quote]

Absolutely true, but as you alluded to, my point was that there is a drastic difference in the "money for nothing" benefits experienced by either endpoint and that experienced by the middle class.

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=Daseal;928128]Not that I agree with the purchasing of the jets, but lets not act like the middle class gains nothing. A big part of these contracts is creating jobs for everyone from aerospace engineers to someone that manufactures sheet metal. Is may not be the payout some people see, but it's a paycheck. I'd rather see us find alternate way to create jobs, but there are positives that come from this for thousands of people.[/quote]

So, no jobs would be created if the money was left in the hands of taxpayers, or if there wasn't as much of a drain on the economy by the toll of the national debt?

The same can be said for EVERY government dollar spent, even for social net spending. Somewhere someone is receiving each of those dollars spent for services rendered. Whether it is a 75000 dollar a year engineer, or a 55000 dollar a year social service worker. In fact I highly doubt many minimum wage jobs are going into the production of those 32 planes (maybe if new facilities were needed, but even then with the security clearances probably needed, I imagine they were higher paying construction jobs). Conversely, in social net spending most all of those dollars are going to pay for mid level bureacrat salaries, and local construction, or money right back that gets put right back into the economy in the form of food or housing payments.

Point is just because some good comes from a reckless project (in defense or social net spending) doesn't mean that project has an overall good result.

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;928362]So, no jobs would be created if the money was left in the hands of taxpayers, or if there wasn't as much of a drain on the economy by the toll of the national debt?

The same can be said for EVERY government dollar spent, even for social net spending. Somewhere someone is receiving each of those dollars spent for services rendered. Whether it is a 75000 dollar a year engineer, or a 55000 dollar a year social service worker. In fact I highly doubt many minimum wage jobs are going into the production of those 32 planes (maybe if new facilities were needed, but even then with the security clearances probably needed, I imagine they were higher paying construction jobs). Conversely, in social net spending most all of those dollars are going to pay for mid level bureacrat salaries, and local construction, or money right back that gets put right back into the economy in the form of food or housing payments.

Point is just because some good comes from a reckless project (in defense or social net spending) doesn't mean that project has an overall good result.[/quote]

I agree with pretty much everything you said. You guys know me, always looking for the positive spin on something. I guess that's my thought as to why this program has continued to gain funding. It's the way American politics work. Congressman from some state keeps supporting it as long as Widget Y production is kept in their district.

Personally, I believe putting money in the hands of the people is the way to really stimulate the economy. People like me spend money on things -- both necessities and frivilous things to which I pay sales tax and don't go through the effort to find loopholes/etc. Businesses take that money and are typically a bit smarter with it. That is one of the fundamental economic differences we see in this country. Chicken or the egg. Do businesses with money create jobs, or do people with money create the demand for jobs. Personally, I believe the latter, but my economics training is limited at best!

Re: F-35 video.
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;928362]So, no jobs would be created if the money was left in the hands of taxpayers, or if there wasn't as much of a drain on the economy by the toll of the national debt?

The same can be said for EVERY government dollar spent, even for social net spending. Somewhere someone is receiving each of those dollars spent for services rendered. Whether it is a 75000 dollar a year engineer, or a 55000 dollar a year social service worker. In fact I highly doubt many minimum wage jobs are going into the production of those 32 planes (maybe if new facilities were needed, but even then with the security clearances probably needed, I imagine they were higher paying construction jobs). Conversely, in social net spending most all of those dollars are going to pay for mid level bureacrat salaries, and local construction, or money right back that gets put right back into the economy in the form of food or housing payments.

Point is just because some good comes from a reckless project (in defense or social net spending) doesn't mean that project [COLOR="Red"]has an overall good result[/COLOR].[/quote]

And like the NFL draft we will not know for years to come.
The F-15 had huge cost issues when it was launched and is has since become one of the most successfull aircraft in USA history.