Quote:
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.