If they are looking for a cheaper way, they should be asking Red Green.
Posted on 05/26/2011 10:21:45 AM PDT by lbryce
More GELATIN WRESTLING’ IN ANTARCTICA!!!!!!!!!
If they are looking for a cheaper way, they should be asking Red Green.
maybe we need $100 trillion for security and anyone who cry its too much, don’t want security
Bambi and Congress did not even blink at spending that much in 1 year for stimulus
Or perhaps they don’t want bent lobbyists and defense contractors to make 99 Trillion for 1 Trillion value of security.
Or perhaps the GDP is well south of 100 Trillion, so spending 100 Trillion on defense would be retarded.
National defense is one of the few legitimate functions of Government. That doesn’t mean you can issue them a blank cheque. You NEVER EVER issue a blank cheque to government. You must apply all due diligence and oversight.
A trillion?
This projected cost is for a 50-year period of time, which would average about 20 billion a year. Compare that to the cost of any ONE of the entitlement programs and get back to me and we’ll talk.
Perspective: Obama spent almost that much in a SINGLE year with his “stimulus” program and what did that do for the security of this nation?
I'm confused. Which number is supposed to be shocking?
Our nation is bankrupt. We are moving more towards a Chinese model in which people are cheaper than equipment.
The cost is high for many reasons. But a large reason is that although it’s a multi-year procurement, Congress only allocates money for it once a year. The contractor can’t make long-term investments in tooling, equipment and automation because they could be stuck with the out-years cost if the program gets cancelled. The solution is to give multi-year contracts multi-year funding.
These estimates always have a way of being low-balled.
The problem (THE problem) for the F-35 program is the ballooning cost.
If they’d asked me (or anyone else who isn’t politically or economically invested in this white elephant), I would have looked at their program goals and said “It is going to blow up in cost and complexity across the board.”
Multi-mission plane? Hugely expensive.
Multi-mission plane with multiple “partner” countries? Hugely expensive and wildly behind schedule.
Just admit that what we learned from the F-111 program is the truth of these things, kill the project and go back to the drawing board. Create one plane for attack, one as a fighter, and make them OUR planes and no one else’s. The cost and complexity will plummet and we can upgrade the fleet.
I thought the bargain was no more F-22s, we’ll buy F-35’s because they’re cheaper and good enough.
ping
Fair enough!
Upgrade the avionics & weapon systems on this baby & kill the F35.
I also do not believe that the F35 is a real stealth fighter against any but 3rd world defense systems. - It will be obsolete in this respect before production ends.
100% correct, 1 trillion wasted when all is said and done.
Based on my experience, you have identified several key factors that should have sounded alarm bells when the program was first conceived.
1 trillion waste and in the end more like 10 trillion, what a POS.
The F-14 was very expensive to maintain. Trying to fly thousands of them for 50 years for less than a trillion? good luck with that.
The Tomcats have all been crushed and scrapped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.