F-35 video.

[FRPLG]

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

[JoeRedskin]

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!"

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

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

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

[saden1]

With respect to the cost of each plane:

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].

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.

[Alvin Walton]

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 not 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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

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 not 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.

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?

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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?

Which ones do you suggest we get rid of?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

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 not 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.

Great post.
I'll add this link for detailed info on the F-35 JSF: F-35 Lightning II Program

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.

[JoeRedskin]

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

[FRPLG]

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?

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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?

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?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

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?

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Hog1

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...

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

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 not 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.

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.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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)