T1B

The F-35 is the most expensive weapons buy in the history of the Pentagon. It's already estimated to cost over $1 trillion over the entire lifecycle cost of the buy. DoD wants to buy 2,443 by late 2030s while the cost to build each F-35 has risen to an average of $137 million from $69 million in 2001. While the F-35 is touted to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, it has been ridden by setbacks and cost inflation.

So for you non trade folks, that means industry can't produce the technology (yet) that DoD wants. Yet they continue to get paid. Boeing has a cheaper, and arguably just as capable, option in the F/A-18 Super Hornet available at $66.9 million.



So should the U.S. shitcan the F-35? I say YES. They can't produce the technology for the vertical take off and landing, and it might not be another 10 years, I guess, until they do. Just buy a shitload of F/A-18s, already bought and proven with predictable cost schedules, and go from there.

Simply, spending has to be railed in somewhere and the F-35 is the best place to start.

88 wrote:I Drone technology is coming quickly.

Sure, we're back to the hardwood argument. Spring for the actual pilots in jets.

88 wrote:And while we're shit canning expensive shit we do not need, what about the V-22?

A. The expense was in development.

B. It absolutely is needed and has performed brilliantly.

The F-35 is a classic white elephant. It was a nice idea, but they tried to make it do too many things. I don't know that it should necessarily be cancelled but it definitely needs to be scaled back to a single role.

Screw_Michigan wrote:[img]http://ipolitics_assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/F-35-may-1024x692.jpg[/img]

Those are F-22s, dumbass.

Fuck! I thought those were F-35s. I should have known better.

Now that Screw has fixed the picture, look at that row of flags on the side.

It's called the Joint Strike Fighter and yes, they are trying to make it do too many things.

Make some of those other countries pay for this thing.

Carson wrote:Now that Screw has fixed the picture, look at that row of flags on the side.

It's called the Joint Strike Fighter and yes, they are trying to make it do too many things.

Make some of those other countries pay for this thing.

Who do you think is more likely to drop out of F-35, Australia or Canada? I think Canada. Though they are "closer" to the US, the Pacific is a more strategic region at this point.

Carson wrote:Now that Screw has fixed the picture, look at that row of flags on the side.

Make some of those other countries pay for this thing.

What the fuck do you think they're doing? They've all committed to a certain number of units but with all the cost overruns some of them either have or are seriously thinking about pulling out of the program. Can't say that I blame them either.

mvscal wrote: What the fuck do you think they're doing? They've all committed to a certain number of units but with all the cost overruns some of them either have or are seriously thinking about pulling out of the program. Can't say that I blame them either.

What do you think of programs like the B61 tailkit? It's basically a nuclear modernization effort, making a nuclear weapon "more accurate." Like a nuclear weapon isn't accurate enough. Isn't this the definition of pork? Dumping millions modernizing a weapon we'll never use?

The B61 is a tactical weapon with an adustable yield so, yes, accuracy is important. It's a pretty piddly contract anyway.

I get a kick out of libtard that whines about defense spending.

Are there defense spending boondoggles?

Yes.

Should they be trimmed in some cases?

Fukk yes.

But, I will take questionable spending in an area MANDATED BY THE FUKKING CONSTITUTION over any spending in areas the feds have no absolutely no role in, no matter how loosely you interpret the constitution.

Nobody asked for your fucking opinion, asshat. When we want to talk about flushing money down the toilet, we'll call upon your expertise.

<--------------- Oh, and see these nuts.

Screw_Michigan wrote: So should the U.S. shitcan the F-35?

Screw_Michigan wrote:Nobody asked for your fucking opinion, asshat.

:?


It is prolly time to end the F-35 program. This plane was trying to do way to much for way to many people. Our best planes have been the ones designed for a specific role. If after a plane is developed for a specific mission it is found to able to perform another mission so be it, but every plane can't meet every role.

Screw_Michigan wrote: Simply, spending has to be railed in somewhere and the F-35 is the best place to start.

Agree spending has to be cut back. I suggest that for every $ that is cut from the F-35 program we match it with a $ from entitlements. So if the entire F-35 program goes away we then get double the spending cuts.

Screw_Michigan wrote: Who do you think is more likely to drop out of F-35, Australia or Canada? I think Canada.

Well spotted

To delay payments, the US is pushing back the schedule - beyond the remaining service life of a CF-18. They're going after Eurofighter Typhoons instead.