Always fighting the last war

[editec]

$400 billion here, $400 brillion there...pretty soon we're talking real money.

 

[there4eyeM]

$400 billion here, $400 brillion there...pretty soon we're talking real money.

One could have a 'pretty good time in Vegas' with 0.0000001% of that.

 

[sitarro]

Typical of the left, ignore the jobs and the technological advances that will be used in commercial air travel, just look at the cost which is surely inflated for the story.. It's as stupid as the ridiculous numbers that were created for the war in Iraq. Imbeciles like you claim that the war cost is so much per month, how does one come to that figure? Do you add in the cost that the military spends each day whether we are in Iraq or not and then add the cost of extra fuel and munitions spent or do you honestly just site the actual cost? No, you add it all together to make it as big and impressive as possible to make your point even though in reality it is much lower. Civilian use for all of the research dollars to create better aircraft for screwing up are enemies is a huge byproduct of the defense industry.

An aircraft like the F-35, which has an airframe that has been adapted to multiple roles for each of the armed services, is so incredibly complex and yet you want it complete immediately and for a bargain price and yet if you are an osamabot, you think food stamps are an investment and more unemployment is good for the economy. All that has been invested in that aircraft will be recouped in the sale of those aircraft to allies of ours.......ditz.

 

[there4eyeM]

Typical of the right; everything that disagrees with their limited world is 'left'. It makes everything so easy, which is what that thinking needs and expresses.

We're not talking about the Vega, here. $400,000,000,000.00 spent to date, and they are all on the ground!?!? How much of this has been 'cost overruns' and other illicit profit boondoggles? All guaranteed to be paid by communal funds (taxes). Not bad, eh?

Let's ask another question. This is ostensibly for 'air superiority', right? Superior to what? Don't we have air superiority already with all the lavish spending on defense? Are we deficient, exposed, vulnerable despite the highest expenditure on 'defense' that the world has ever seen and with the greatest and best minds at work?

Also, how do we even know what it means to be superior to unforeseen technologies, such as things that have made aircraft carriers obsolete? What will we do if/when China comes up with a cheap, super-maneuverable remote controlled fighter that can be built ten to our one?

These big, spectacular projects give a false sense of security. Peace is cheaper than war.

 

[KissMy]

(MTHEL) Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser & the Star-Wars weapon system have made all other war toys obsolete. These lasers slice through steel 20 feet thick.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCBwLJjzDJQ"]MTHEL[/ame]

 

[Oldguy]

$400,000,000,000.00 should provide a fully perfected product. It is scandalous that any weapons system cost so much without being absolutely needed, viable and effective.

It will provide a perfected product, as perfect as human beings can make it, but it won't be right off the first assembly line. It never is. Hell, even your TIRES must spend a lot of time on test tracks and laboratories to achieve a level of perfection which makes them safe when you put them on your car.

Why would you expect the development of something as complex as an aircraft to be any different?

Methinks you just want to criticize DOD.

 

[there4eyeM]

$400,000,000,000.00 should provide a fully perfected product. It is scandalous that any weapons system cost so much without being absolutely needed, viable and effective.

It will provide a perfected product, as perfect as human beings can make it, but it won't be right off the first assembly line. It never is. Hell, even your TIRES must spend a lot of time on test tracks and laboratories to achieve a level of perfection which makes them safe when you put them on your car.

Why would you expect the development of something as complex as an aircraft to be any different?

Methinks you just want to criticize DOD.

We seem to see many things from the same viewpoint, but here I can't understand your thinking. FOUR HUNDRED BILLION dollars? Isn't that, like, just an incredible sum?

 

[tjvh]

Unlike the F-16's Obama has been sending to Iraq that actually do work: Iraq signs contract for 2nd batch of 18 F-16s :: F-16.net

 

[Oldguy]

$400,000,000,000.00 should provide a fully perfected product. It is scandalous that any weapons system cost so much without being absolutely needed, viable and effective.

It will provide a perfected product, as perfect as human beings can make it, but it won't be right off the first assembly line. It never is. Hell, even your TIRES must spend a lot of time on test tracks and laboratories to achieve a level of perfection which makes them safe when you put them on your car.

Why would you expect the development of something as complex as an aircraft to be any different?

Methinks you just want to criticize DOD.

We seem to see many things from the same viewpoint, but here I can't understand your thinking. FOUR HUNDRED BILLION dollars? Isn't that, like, just an incredible sum?

Of course it's an incredible sum, and it's hard to imagine that it couldn't be done more cheaply.

However, retaining the "edge" is always expensive because you're creating the advantage, not copying it like everyone else will be able to do once this new fighter is fully developed.

In any case, what would be an acceptable cost do you and would you require the development of a new aircraft to stay within that parameter, even if it means leaving some things undone or undeveloped?

 

[Oldguy]

Unlike the F-16's Obama has been sending to Iraq that actually do work: Iraq signs contract for 2nd batch of 18 F-16s :: F-16.net

Well...yeah. But, that first F-16 to roll off the assembly line 40 years ago did not spring fully-born into the skies. It too had its share of problems, miscalculations, cost over-runs and unexpected issues.

You're comparing a finished product with one still in development.

 

[there4eyeM]

We seem to see many things from the same viewpoint, but here I can't understand your thinking. FOUR HUNDRED BILLION dollars? Isn't that, like, just an incredible sum?[/QUOTE]


Of course it's an incredible sum, and it's hard to imagine that it couldn't be done more cheaply.

However, retaining the "edge" is always expensive because you're creating the advantage, not copying it like everyone else will be able to do once this new fighter is fully developed.

In any case, what would be an acceptable cost do you and would you require the development of a new aircraft to stay within that parameter, even if it means leaving some things undone or undeveloped?[/QUOTE]

It would have to be demonstrated that the need was real; i.e., that there was a genuine risk of a potential enemy coming up with enough of something superior to warrant the investment and also if there were not a counter measure even more effective.

 

[there4eyeM]

I would point out that in WWII, no one thought the Sherman tank the equal of the Tiger, Panther and maybe not even the T34 (an ally, so not to be met in battle). They were, nonetheless, produced in great numbers because they were relatively effective and not too expensive. German technological superiority was trumped by overwhelming quantity. If it takes five Shermans to kill one Tiger, but there are ten times more Shermans than Tigers, the last tank rolling will be a Sherman, and it was.