Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
President Obama had warned that he would veto the defense bill if it included $1.75 billion for the construction of new F-22s. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “If we can’t get this right, what on earth can we get right? (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003170588 - broken link) … It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual.”
Actually, last I heard, officials seem to want to funnel the money to buy F-35's instead... which by the way... are more expensive... what I find odd is that we fund the money to create these plans and then sell them for dirt cheap to OTHER countries (considering how much we invested to create and build these planes)...
what I find odd is that we fund the money to create these plans and then sell them for dirt cheap to OTHER countries (considering how much we invested to create and build these planes)...
The more you build the cheaper they get, the B1 and B2 costs have been so exorbitant because of limited production. Each unit you build the costs of development get spread thinner and the cost of production and maintenance also drops. So if we build 200 extra planes and sell them to country X our costs also drop. Having said that I wouldn't look forward to see that plane exported any time in the near future.
Actually, last I heard, officials seem to want to funnel the money to buy F-35's instead... which by the way... are more expensive... what I find odd is that we fund the money to create these plans and then sell them for dirt cheap to OTHER countries (considering how much we invested to create and build these planes)...
F-35 38m per aircraft (for the more expensive Navy version).
F-22 $86m per aircraft (only version is for the Air Force).
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukester
President Obama had warned that he would veto the defense bill if it included $1.75 billion for the construction of new F-22s. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “If we can’t get this right, what on earth can we get right? (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003170588 - broken link) … It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual.”
Allow me to chime in on a personal note. The facility, Lockheed, that builds those planes is about 3 minutes from our residence (as is Dobbs AFB which is next to it). Many of our neighbours and even friends work there and they are quite worried about it. I feel for them. BUT I am for cutting the program. We have more than enough of the planes, they will probably never be used and are not used in Iraq or Afganistan and we have other priorities.
We've got almost 200 F-22s. The original order is complete. No need to add to them. Better to fund and purchase the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter).
I was going to say the same thing, they can cut funding for the F-22, as long as they keep full funding of the F-35 which is a more versatile fighter, and was designed with three versions in mind to cover all of the branches of the military.
By the way Zgack, I wish I could rep you more, unfortunately I have given you too many lately lol.
Actually, last I heard, officials seem to want to funnel the money to buy F-35's instead... which by the way... are more expensive... what I find odd is that we fund the money to create these plans and then sell them for dirt cheap to OTHER countries (considering how much we invested to create and build these planes)...
the F-35 might be more expensive to build, but it can be configured several different ways. You have an Air force version, Marine version (which includes vertical take off and landing) and a Navy version for Carrier operations. So in the end, we will save money by not having to develop separate aircraft for each arm of the military
The more you build the cheaper they get, the B1 and B2 costs have been so exorbitant because of limited production. Each unit you build the costs of development get spread thinner and the cost of production and maintenance also drops. So if we build 200 extra planes and sell them to country X our costs also drop. Having said that I wouldn't look forward to see that plane exported any time in the near future.
I think this aircraft does have a no import stamp with it as well. As much as I know, it is the worlds first 5-th generation air superiority fighter. Russia is still trying to work out the kinks on theirs.
the F-35 might be more expensive to build, but it can be configured several different ways. You have an Air force version, Marine version (which includes vertical take off and landing) and a Navy version for Carrier operations. So in the end, we will save money by not having to develop separate aircraft for each arm of the military
The last aircraft designed for all three services. It was too heavy to launch from the carriers and too big for the elevators. Demanded by the late Robert McNamara. Production on it was cancelled early with hundreds that were planned not built.
The last aircraft designed for all three services. It was too heavy to launch from the carriers and too big for the elvators. Demanded by the late Robert McNamara. Production on it was cancelled early with hundreds that were planned not built.
There were geese produced that never lived up to the expectations of the armed services. They have tested all three versions of this aircraft, and they preform as planned. There is a GREAT documentary about the F-35 out floating around. It covers the competition between Boeing and Lockheed for the JSF
I think anyone can look at the aardvark, and see that it um.... would not live up to the expectations it was put up to.
Why spend money on a plane like the F-22?
Well lessons learned from our past should answer this.
Take the tank for example. Unlike the Soviets who built a reasonably good main battle tank we built a turd because it was cheap. In the end on a battlefield it was a death trap. Enter M1 Abrams. Expensive and not cheap to maintain. Up against Russian T-72's it dominated. We may not be fighting Russians and Chines but we are fighting their equipment.
Aircraft: Well while we focused on planes that were strong and flew really fast in a straight line they were lousy dog fighters. The Russians focused on manuverability. In Vietnam we enjoyed only a 2:1 kill ratio over a 3rd world country....
Likewise with our Navy we allowed it time and time again to slip into a second rate status. WWI WWII Korea and Vietnam demonstrates what good a second rate Navy is. We end playing catch up and spending far more to develope technology in a hurry.
Its much cheaper to maintain a lead rather than try to catch up and surpass.
I for one feel that our troops deserve the best equipment money can buy.
Name a premire Fighter, bomber or Helicopter that didn't have its share of issues out of the gate.
P-51 mustang?? Check its history and yet today it is a legend.
F-14? Whoa one nastey intercepter and feared by the Soviets for a good reason. But it had its problems.
F-18 ? Another great plane that had a shakey start.
Today we have the most powerful Military on Earth and it is worth every penny we spent to build it.
In a perfect world we would need no Military but this world is anything but perfect.
The hard part is knowing when to use it and how much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
