Defending the economy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Navy1960, Nov 4, 2010.

  1. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    When John McCain was shot down over Hanoi in 1967, he was flying an A4 Skyhawk. That jet cost $860,000.

    Inflation has risen by 700% since then. So Mr. McCain's A4 cost $6.1 million in 2008 dollars. Applying a generous factor of three for technological improvements, the price for a 2008 Navy F18 fighter should be about $18 million. Instead, we are paying about $90 million for each new fighter. As a result, the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers. This is disarmament without a treaty.

    The situation is worse in the Air Force. In 1983, I was in the Pentagon meeting that launched the F-22 Raptor. The plan was to buy 648 jets beginning in 1996 for $60 million each (in 1983 dollars). Now they cost $350 million apiece and the Obama budget caps the program at 187 jets. At least they are safe from cyberattack since no one in China knows how to program the '83 vintage IBM software that runs them.

    Wasteful Defense Spending Is a Clear and Present Danger - WSJ.com

    Some will argue among them Sarah Palin that cutting Defense Spending during wartime is complete nonsense. However, given the shape of our economy one must consider that from a national security standpoint spending over a Trillion Dollars a year for Defense is somewhat hard to justify when the current system of DoD purchasing is a complete mess. One positive step to reforming this would be to reform contracting to songle souce fixed cost contracts that are time limted. The end result of this would be savings of countless billions of dollars with more hardware to the warfighter that is needed. Take for example the C-17, for years the Air Force has told congress that they no longer need them and yet, we keep on buying them despite the Air Force not asking for them. The same goes for the Alternate Engine for the F-35 and countless numbers of programs in the Defense Department. This is not a matter of taking from the Warfighter , it is a matter of getting the best systems to soldier, sailor , marine and airman to do the job without contractors and the DoD purchasing system costing American taxpayers and national security. The system is so set in it takes courage to change it, but in times where it need to be reformed , this is a good place to start when addressing both the needs of the US Military and the economy.
     
  2. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    China can afford to duplicate our military hardware for 1/10the cost.

    We have priced ourselves out of the next arms race.
     
  3. Saikron
    Offline

    Saikron Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2010
    Messages:
    106
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +14
    I'm a liberal nut and I approve of wasting less money :clap2:
     
  4. Soggy in NOLA
    Offline

    Soggy in NOLA Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Messages:
    32,792
    Thanks Received:
    4,320
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,513
    It doesn't really matter... were going the way of the Wiemar Republic and printing money to buy back our debt.

    It's all over.
     
  5. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    we speend around 700 billion base line defense spening a year that does not include War supplementals which make that number rise to over a trillion. The nesxt nation on the list is China at 98 Billion, followed by the UK, France and Russian Federation at around 60 plus billion. I thought you all might be interested in knowing what the nation that we deem as our biggest threat spent last year on Defense 10 billion. Again, I am not an advocate of taking anything away from the Military, but I am an advocate for reforming a system that is bloated beyond reason and wastes vaste sums of money needlessly.
     
  6. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    You mean we lost WWI and signed the Treaty of Versaille?

    Who knew!
     
  7. LiberalNut
    Offline

    LiberalNut Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    741
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +49
    the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers.

    Sufficient numbers for what exactly?
     
  8. topspin
    Offline

    topspin BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,149
    Thanks Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +196
    you war mongers are nuts, we spend exponentially too much already
     
  9. Mr Clean
    Offline

    Mr Clean Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    10,055
    Thanks Received:
    2,250
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,826

    You know, fighting the Soviet Union c1980.
     
  10. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    I believe the article was saying that because of the over bloated contracting system and often time corrupt one as a result the Navy for example ends up with less aircraft because if the high cost of purchasing them when then should cost adjusted for inflation much less than they are. It was an example of how DoD purchasing has become so terribly managed that we as taxpayers should be getting 3 aircraft when we are actually getting one or never should have spent the difference in the first place.
     

Share This Page