Andrew2070 Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 In response to U.S spending billions on new joint strike fighter... Tax dollars wasted. Helmet alone costs 250,000 USD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quagma Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-30/news/vw-18804_1_nut $37 screws, a $7622 coffee maker, $640 toilet seats... "a division of Litton Industries and two of its former executives are accused of defrauding the government out of $6.3 million on military contracts" " the company "grossly inflated prices intentionally" on about 45 contracts from 1975 to 1984" A fictional company put out a book offering things for sale.. real prices though. This is what the gov't paid for these ordinarily very cheap items. "Other items offered in the catalog include a $285 screwdriver, a $7,622 coffee maker, a $387 flat washer, a $469 wrench, a $214 flashlight, a $437 tape measure, a $2,228 monkey wrench, a $748 pair of duckbill pliers, a $74,165 aluminum ladder, a $659 ashtray and a $240- million airplane" "a plain round nut," was made by McDonnell Douglas for the Navy at $2,043 each." "a claw hammer sold by Gould Simulation Systems to the Navy for $435. In the picture it looks like the kind you can buy at any hardware store for $10." "McDonnell Douglas' price of only $37 for a screw." "comfort the secretary of defense when he's sitting on a $640 toilet seat." All in all, the gov't has a history of buying over-priced equipment. This plane is nothing new... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew2070 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 Well, see the problem is that, The navy is still using old f-15's and what not which aren't as practical anymore. The Marine Corp need a fighter aircraft capable of bombing ground targets and VTOL capability. The USAF need a new highly advanced air superiority fighter to keep themselves ahead of China. The problem with the current F-22 is that, For the air-force it can only carry about eight rotary launched air to air heat seeking missiles. The air-force realized that it cannot bomb targets with the fighter, as is the need now in the middle east. The navy don't really care, they just get a brand new fighter to replace the old ones from the 80's. The marine corp are excited as fuck to get their hands on a new state of the art VTOL fighter/bomber. All in all, congress approves the spending of trillions on a useless plane which is currently, by far outperformed by the F-22 which is by far the most advanced Fighter aircraft to date. Personally speaking they should have let the fighters alone and replaced the b-52 bombers from the cold war. They have been lying across the nation in either grave yards or coastal airforce bases prepped with nukes. They need to be replaced with faster supersonic bombers that can carry twice the amount of missiles. (New bomber, slightly expensive but can carry twice the weight, and fly a longer distance in less time). Anyhow, The b-2 was an absolute waste of money, so im interested to see how far fighters can go. Eventually a point will be reached that Russia/China/US will have pretty much the same Jet. As it's simple as how long can Apple go until running out of ideas for their latest Iphone? I don't think slimming out and enlarging aircraft is the best solution to national "innovation", much less defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quagma Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 rumor confirmed: the b-2 is the new iPhone ^^^ but seriously, i didn't know all that stuff. Your original post didn't have much info to go on, and the gov't and expensive airplane thing is not new, there have been many aeronautical lemons in the military, so i guess i thought that's what you were talking about (disclaimer: quagma has no clue what goes on outside his bedroom window, outside his books and games, and should not be taken as an expert on current/world events) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew2070 Posted December 16, 2015 Author Share Posted December 16, 2015 The whole point of the bomber force is to keep a wing of strategic nuclear weapons alive. In the event that nuclear war is waged, submarines and bunkered silos are enough. The money for the bombers could be redirected into spending on say schools. Nevertheless, should russians launch from their submarines then bombers have 0 point. All the major AFB's are on coast, it would take 20 minutes for them to be wiped out. Thus destroying the bomber force and 500+ missiles loaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quagma Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 sounds scary. but! i can't really debate you over this one. my interest are in science fiction books, and usually the sci fi books dealing with war aren't the kind of story i like to read, unless it's got to do with some kind of cool new technology. maybe someday in the future we will be dealing with this exact sort of scenario, but instead of planes it might by teleporters, or anti-gravity, or faster-than-light anti-matter bombs, or whatever the future throws at us next. my guess is when a new technology or better improvement comes along, change is resisted, and nothing illustrates this more than the military. edit// i'm so sorry this is formatted so badly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.