Trump to save money by giving our troops cheaper equipment

[eagle1462010]

Why America's new stealth bomber could cost over $100 billion

William LaPlante, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisitions, told reporters during a Pentagon press briefing that an independent cost analysis, which the Defense Department has not released, put the price tag of the Long-Range Strike Bomber at $564 million per aircraft in today's dollars.

The service aims to buy 80 to 100 new bombers, putting the effort's purchase price at around $55 billion. Another $23.5 billion will be spent to develop the aircraft, which likely won't be deployed for another decade, pushing the program's sticker price up to about $80 billion. Toss in lifetime maintenance costs, unforeseen changes and upgrades, and typically bad budgeting by the Pentagon and the program's cost could easily swell to over $100 billion.


Single mission capabilities.....massive payload........Great Stealth technology...........but they are 564 million each.......

Most of our combat is now taking out small targets in 3rd World countries........Not leveling cities with massive ordinance.........

 

[eagle1462010]

The key question...........is How do we get the Best BANG FOR THE BUCK..........considering our main uses in coming times...............

Do we want state of the art aircraft to give us the advantage against Russia and China............yes

Do we also want smaller aircraft with many capabilities to fight smaller targets.........................yes

Do we want to upgrade our current aircraft to give them better radar and combat capabilities..................yes


We need to decide what to buy for the Best result without SPENDING into OBLIVION.............

 

[HenryBHough]

America will never be a fully-developed First World Nation until our universities are FORCED to instruct all liberal arts students in the arcane science of VALUE FOR MONEY.

 

[eagle1462010]

New report claims F-35 outclassed by 40 year-old F-16, government disagrees - ExtremeTech

F35 goes head to head with an older F16.............gets it's ass kicked.............

The Pentagon's official F-35 bug list is terrifying - ExtremeTech

Laundry list of problems..................don't eject from the plane it kills you
can't turn your head in combat to see behind you.......
needs ground logistics to assist in it's attack.........lol
not enough payload..............

 

[eagle1462010]

If this plane, for 330 to 360 million dollars.............can't defeat a plane that is decades old

THEN WE DON'T NEED IT.

 

[danielpalos]

Why America's new stealth bomber could cost over $100 billion

William LaPlante, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisitions, told reporters during a Pentagon press briefing that an independent cost analysis, which the Defense Department has not released, put the price tag of the Long-Range Strike Bomber at $564 million per aircraft in today's dollars.

The service aims to buy 80 to 100 new bombers, putting the effort's purchase price at around $55 billion. Another $23.5 billion will be spent to develop the aircraft, which likely won't be deployed for another decade, pushing the program's sticker price up to about $80 billion. Toss in lifetime maintenance costs, unforeseen changes and upgrades, and typically bad budgeting by the Pentagon and the program's cost could easily swell to over $100 billion.


Single mission capabilities.....massive payload........Great Stealth technology...........but they are 564 million each.......

Most of our combat is now taking out small targets in 3rd World countries........Not leveling cities with massive ordinance.........

Not sure what your point is; multirole craft cost more and will be fewer.

what i am hearing, is that we need to get our land force based air services, single mission plans right, for optimum production runs to lower cost. Multirole will always be more complicated than single role and there is limited space for sea borne aircraft.

How will that be better for air superiority in any given airspace?

 

[eagle1462010]

do land based air forces need multirole aircraft?

yes and no.........

Imagine you are a pilot and are on a mission to attack enemy targets...........

The point is, there are no space restrictions and thus, no multirole requirements for land based air forces; i assume full employment of resources in general scenarios.

That assumption has been squashed by requests from the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and etc...........Requesting and demanding the need for Multi Role Aircraft over single mission aircraft...........

They want fighter Attack capabilities on the path finders into the conflict.......to destroy threats.......and then bring in the heavies...........B1's.....B52's and bring massive payloads to the enemy.

we may just be quibbling over semantics. even bombers have self defense capabilities not just bombing capabilities.

The U.S. Department of Defense responded by accelerating its Rapid Deployment Forces concept but suffered from major problems with airlift and sealift capability.[53] In order to slow an enemy invasion of other countries, air power was critical; however the key Iran-Afghanistan border was outside the range of the U.S. Navy's carrier-based attack aircraft, leaving this role to the U.S. Air Force. Although the B-52 had the range to support on-demand global missions, its long runway requirements limited the forward basing possibilities.[54]

Why would fewer multirole craft be preferable to fully complemented, multi-missions, with mission specific aircraft.

Let's assume one wing with a bombing mission and one wing with an air defence mission for the airspace involved.

Or, even a left wing, utopian fantasy of three air wings for an airspace, that may even include a ground support mission.

The article posted range problems with the Navy..................It's more of needing more Refueling aircraft in the area..................

 

[eagle1462010]

Why America's new stealth bomber could cost over $100 billion

William LaPlante, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisitions, told reporters during a Pentagon press briefing that an independent cost analysis, which the Defense Department has not released, put the price tag of the Long-Range Strike Bomber at $564 million per aircraft in today's dollars.

The service aims to buy 80 to 100 new bombers, putting the effort's purchase price at around $55 billion. Another $23.5 billion will be spent to develop the aircraft, which likely won't be deployed for another decade, pushing the program's sticker price up to about $80 billion. Toss in lifetime maintenance costs, unforeseen changes and upgrades, and typically bad budgeting by the Pentagon and the program's cost could easily swell to over $100 billion.


Single mission capabilities.....massive payload........Great Stealth technology...........but they are 564 million each.......

Most of our combat is now taking out small targets in 3rd World countries........Not leveling cities with massive ordinance.........

Not sure what your point is; multirole craft cost more and will be fewer.

what i am hearing, is that we need to get our land force based air services, single mission plans right, for optimum production runs to lower cost. Multirole will always be more complicated than single role and there is limited space for sea borne aircraft.

How will that be better for air superiority in any given airspace?

I showed the price tags.........they are all expensive........the multi role costs for upgraded F/A 18F aircraft are the same price or cheaper than most single role aircraft.........UNLESS we are talking 5th Generation aircraft such as the F22, F35, and the B!B.

 

[eagle1462010]

Going up against the F15's is like clubbing baby seals........the F15's could never see the F22 until they were targeted by fire control radar.

 

[eagle1462010]

Trump Tells Twitter He Wants A Super Hornet With F-35 Capabilities

Trump Tweet
“Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!” he tweeted at 5:26 p.m. EST.

Trump states
Hewson declined to give a statement, but Trump offered his own take:

“We’re just beginning, it’s a dance. It’s a little bit of a dance. But we’re going to get the costs down and we’re going to get it done beautifully.”

 

[danielpalos]

do land based air forces need multirole aircraft?

yes and no.........

Imagine you are a pilot and are on a mission to attack enemy targets...........

The point is, there are no space restrictions and thus, no multirole requirements for land based air forces; i assume full employment of resources in general scenarios.

That assumption has been squashed by requests from the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and etc...........Requesting and demanding the need for Multi Role Aircraft over single mission aircraft...........

They want fighter Attack capabilities on the path finders into the conflict.......to destroy threats.......and then bring in the heavies...........B1's.....B52's and bring massive payloads to the enemy.

we may just be quibbling over semantics. even bombers have self defense capabilities not just bombing capabilities.

The U.S. Department of Defense responded by accelerating its Rapid Deployment Forces concept but suffered from major problems with airlift and sealift capability.[53] In order to slow an enemy invasion of other countries, air power was critical; however the key Iran-Afghanistan border was outside the range of the U.S. Navy's carrier-based attack aircraft, leaving this role to the U.S. Air Force. Although the B-52 had the range to support on-demand global missions, its long runway requirements limited the forward basing possibilities.[54]

Why would fewer multirole craft be preferable to fully complemented, multi-missions, with mission specific aircraft.

Let's assume one wing with a bombing mission and one wing with an air defence mission for the airspace involved.

Or, even a left wing, utopian fantasy of three air wings for an airspace, that may even include a ground support mission.

The article posted range problems with the Navy..................It's more of needing more Refueling aircraft in the area..................

nothing but diversion, instead of a reasoned argument?

would one wing of multirole aircraft achieve air superiority over a left wing fantasy of three wings for a given airspace.

 

[RealDave]

America will never be a fully-developed First World Nation until our universities are FORCED to instruct all liberal arts students in the arcane science of VALUE FOR MONEY.

Really.

At what value to you put on our pilots & the troops these jets are supposed to protect?

We should have the most advanced, best aircraft.

Not something a know nothing person bullies into cost savings when those cost savings would translate to a lesser craft.

 

[RealDave]

Trump is going to have our soldiers fight with the cheaper option.

And you assholes defend it.

My God

It's laughable to think a bunch of liberals giving a shit about our servicemen.

Republicans always **** over our vets. Democrats have a far far far better record of actually helping them & protecting them.

Reubliss like to talk about our vets then they elect a POW bashing POS.

Really? Tell that to the Vets using barry's VA.

Tell your America hating Republicans to better fund them.

Republicans are oo stupid to understand that when you go to war, you will add to the volume at the VA.

 

[RealDave]

The rejected Bills are named:

You read all those bills, right? Problem is a LOT of shit gets tacked on to the bills so libs can cry evil when the Republicans refuse to go along with it. with Trump we'll have a better chance of actually getting more done.

Spitting on the vets again? Typical Trump voter.

 

[Spare_change]

Hey Dave! Cheaper does not equal inferior. If you think about it, you would agree. If you don't like PEOTUS, find a legitimate reason to complain.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

So, genius, how do they lower the cost?
1) fewer features?
2) cheaper materials
3) Pay all those working on the roject minimum wage?

I laugfh at you for defending Triump on this. You want to sendf our troops to war with inferior eq

They always have inferior equipment.......Trump might actually be able to fix this.

Oh how fasrt the right jumps down the military's throat to protect their Orange Leader. First the generals are all so stupid that Trump knew more about ISIS than they did, POWs aren't heroes, and now our military fights with junk.

But hey, you are the same ones that said it was alright to send troops into Iraq without proper armor on vehicles & without protective gear for our soldiers.

Let's remember why our military didn't have the equipment. Clinton was handed a strong military and cut spending big time. Then handed Bush a recession and 911.

Actually, dick Cheney slashed our military as Sec of Defense under HW Bush far more than it was cut under Bill Clinton (6 years with Republican congresses).

Sorry ---- you'll have to prove that to us. But, when you do, make sure that is the SecDef that is responsible, and not Congress, okay?

 

[Spare_change]

Trump is going to have our soldiers fight with the cheaper option.

And you assholes defend it.

My God

It's laughable to think a bunch of liberals giving a shit about our servicemen.

Republicans always **** over our vets. Democrats have a far far far better record of actually helping them & protecting them.

Reubliss like to talk about our vets then they elect a POW bashing POS.

And that is a lie.........anyone who thinks that is either lying intentionally, or is just too stupid to know the truth.

Do some research. Become better informed.
Bill's Blocked By Republican's Since President Obama Took Office.

David Gregory, John McCain, and the media aren't covering this story so we have to.

Here's a concise extraction for easy viewing for those who are INTERESTED IN VETERANS ISSUES and need to know which party supports veterans and which party does not.

The rejected Bills are named:

H.R. 466 – Wounded Veteran Job Security Act became H. R. 2875.

H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act

H.R. 1171 – Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization

H.R. 1172 -- Requiring List on VA Website of Organizations Providing Scholarships for Veterans

H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009

H.R. 1803 -- Veterans Business Center Act

H.R. 2352 – Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act

DETAILS OF BILLS REJECTED BY REPUBLICANS:

H.R. 466 – Wounded Veteran Job Security Act – This bill would actually provide job security for veterans who are receiving medical treatment for injuries suffered while fighting in defense of their country. It would prohibit employers from terminating
employees who miss work while receiving treatment for a service-related disability.

H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act – This bill would provide for assistance to help veterans who are currently unemployed with their expenses while retraining for the current job market.

H.R. 1171 – Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization – This bill would reauthorize programs in support of homeless veterans, to assist them with job training, counseling, and placement services through the Department of Veterans Affairs through 2014.

H.R. 1172 -- Requiring List on VA Website of Organizations Providing Scholarships for Veterans which does nothing more than direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to include information about scholarships for veterans.

H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009 – Here’sanother bill in support of those who have fought for their country, passed by House Democrats and blocked from becoming law by Republicans.

This would increase the amount paid by the VA to disabled veterans for necessary home structural improvements from $4,100 to $6,800 for those who are more than 50% disabled, and from $1,200 to $2,000 who are less than 50%, disabled. This means, if a veteran lost the use of his legs in service of his country, the country will pay for the wheelchair ramp so that he can live at home.

By the way, the last time this ceiling was lifted was in 1992. There isn't even a fiscal reason for being against this bill, as the total cost of this bill, according to CBO estimates, would be a “whopping” $20 million. That's about a quarter (25 cents) per family of four.

H.R. 1803 -- Veterans Business Center Act – This bill would set up a Veterans Business Center program within the Small Business Administration, which would specialize in such programs as grants for service-disabled veterans, help them develop business plans and secure business opportunities. In other words, folks, it would create jobs and offer opportunities those who have fought in defense of our country.

H.R. 2352 – Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act – This bill essentially combines a number of other bills that Republicans had blocked in the Senate previously, and adds a few elements. The bill would again establish a Veterans Business Center Program; .... it would establish a Military Entrepreneurs Program; ...

Republicans Vote Against Increased VA Funding
Two billion to rescue our ailing VA system as new vets flood the system? Not necessary. apparently.
From the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Washington Post: (with thanks to jmarshall on our comment board)

"Republicans beat back a Democratic attempt to provide almost $2 billion in additional health care funding for veterans. rejecting claims that Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals are in crisis."

VA hospitals are doing just fine. huh? Tell that to Jeremy Lewis or Denver Jones - just two of the thousands of Iraq vets who came home to months of bureaucracy and delayed treatment. But it's not just Iraq vets who think the VA needs some help

A feverish 30 second search on google puts the lie to most of what you say, and certainly raises questions about the veracity of the rest:

"H.R. 466: Wounded Veteran Job Security Act
Sponsored by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
Passed in the House & DIED in the Senate during the DEMOCRATS 111th Congress:
Wounded Veteran Job Security Act (2009 - H.R. 466)

H.R. 1168: Veterans Retraining Act of 2009
Sponsored by Rep. John Boozman (R-AR)
Passed in the House & DIED in the Senate during the DEMOCRATS 111th Congress:
Veterans Retraining Act of 2009 (2009 - H.R. 1168)

H.R. 1171: Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
Sponsored by Rep. John Boozman (R-AR)
Passed in the House & Senate and was signed into LAW during the DEMOCRATS 111th Congress:
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (2009 - H.R. 1171)

H.R. 1172: To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the Internet website of the Department of Veterans Affairs a list of organizations that provide scholarships to veterans and their survivors.
Sponsored by Rep. John Boozman (R-AR)
Passed in the House & Senate and was signed into LAW during the DEMOCRATS 111th Congress:
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/111th-...ouse-bill/1172

H.R. 1293: Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009
Sponsored by Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN)
Passed in the House & DIED in the Senate during the DEMOCRATS 111th Congress:
Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009 (2009 - H.R. 1293)"

Your whole list was fabricated by Daily KOS (now, THERE is a fine purveyor of journalistic integrity) that completely distorts reality. By failing to provide the back-story on each bill, they have intentionally misled the public .... and you, apparently.

 

[RealDave]

So, genius, how do they lower the cost?
1) fewer features?
2) cheaper materials
3) Pay all those working on the roject minimum wage?

I laugfh at you for defending Triump on this. You want to sendf our troops to war with inferior eq

They always have inferior equipment.......Trump might actually be able to fix this.

Oh how fasrt the right jumps down the military's throat to protect their Orange Leader. First the generals are all so stupid that Trump knew more about ISIS than they did, POWs aren't heroes, and now our military fights with junk.

But hey, you are the same ones that said it was alright to send troops into Iraq without proper armor on vehicles & without protective gear for our soldiers.

Let's remember why our military didn't have the equipment. Clinton was handed a strong military and cut spending big time. Then handed Bush a recession and 911.

Actually, dick Cheney slashed our military as Sec of Defense under HW Bush far more than it was cut under Bill Clinton (6 years with Republican congresses).

Sorry ---- you'll have to prove that to us. But, when you do, make sure that is the SecDef that is responsible, and not Congress, okay?

Sorry but your education is not my priority.

 

[Spare_change]

Faced with the possible loss of this huge contract, anyone think that the Military pulling out of the F-35 program might be a negotiation tactic to get costs down and production more efficient while saving taxpayers money?

Naw, couldn't be that at all.....

After spending 400 billion on the F35 design development, and production of the first plane for fight testing, the pentagon is not about to scrap the program for two reason. First, there are no other good alternatives for the Air Force and Marines and secondly the plane offers great promise despite the plane missing the mark during flight test. For the pentagon to cancel the contract and pay Lockheed cancellation costs and rebid would make no sense because Lockheed would very likely be the low bidder since no other manufacturer will know the plane as well as the company that designed and built it. Negotiating with Lockheed is probably the Pentagon's best bet.

Should we modularize our arms industry, and have the commanding heights of heavier industries, reserved to federal and State armories. Gains could be achieved from standardization of heavier parts, under direct government control.

I'm not even sure that makes any sense whatsoever ... what are you trying to say?

 

[Spare_change]

do land based air forces need multirole aircraft?

Oops --- your ignorance gene is showing. You need to do some serious learning ...

 

[Spare_change]

If this plane, for 330 to 360 million dollars.............can't defeat a plane that is decades old

THEN WE DON'T NEED IT.

LOL