F-35 video.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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.

[Daseal]

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.

[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.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

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.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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!

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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.