Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Debating with the enemy


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-13-2011, 03:53 PM   #1
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 13,115
Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!



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".

F-35 looking more like white elephant - Yahoo! News

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.
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 01-14-2011, 09:50 AM   #2
Playmaker
 
Alvin Walton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 4,679
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.
__________________
REDSKINS FAN SINCE 1968
Alvin Walton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 10:08 AM   #3
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 13,115
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alvin Walton View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 10:18 AM   #4
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 13,115
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). The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).[30][31][32]
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 10:20 AM   #5
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 13,115
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
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.
Fair enough. Blame 'em both
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 10:26 AM   #6
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 85,524
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
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.
Funny how you seem to pick and choose when both sides are responsible for something.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 10:48 AM   #7
Inactive
 
KLHJ2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: DC Metro Area
Age: 36
Posts: 5,829
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.
KLHJ2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 10:53 AM   #8
Playmaker
 
Alvin Walton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 4,679
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.
__________________
REDSKINS FAN SINCE 1968
Alvin Walton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 10:54 AM   #9
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
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.
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.
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:

Chinese Stealth Fighter / J-X / J-XX / XXJ / J-12 / J-13 / J-14 / J-20

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:
U.S. Defense Spending and Budget: The Mismatch Between Spending and Resources | The Heritage Foundation

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.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 10:56 AM   #10
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alvin Walton View Post
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.
I don't care how big the radar sig is...the A-10 is just too cool. Nothing like a tank with wings.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 11:06 AM   #11
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
from Wikipedia, but you certainly can find other current docs for proof:
Also read this:

Military budget of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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).
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 11:16 AM   #12
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 13,115
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
I don't care how big the radar sig is...the A-10 is just too cool. Nothing like a tank with wings.
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!
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 11:32 AM   #13
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 13,115
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)
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 11:56 AM   #14
Playmaker
 
Alvin Walton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 4,679
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

CRedskinsRule wrote: you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech.

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?
__________________
REDSKINS FAN SINCE 1968
Alvin Walton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 12:09 PM   #15
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 13,115
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. Though at that time the F-22 was assumed to be able to shoot down 48 Chinese Flankers when outnumbered 12:1 without loss, 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. 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. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese..."
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?
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.32786 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25