F-35 video.

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


http://r0.sgsr.us/imgs/250/b5729.gif

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. Total Aircraft by Country (http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp)

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.

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.

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.

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)



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.
"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,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus, 1883

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?

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.

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.

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?

With respect to the cost (http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Weapons.pdf) 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.

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

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.

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?