Pentagon considers cancelling F-35 Program - Polidicks

Wow from that article it's also disgusting what useless shit Congress throws at the Defense Department, everyone that profits from those deals should be thrown out(almost all of them).

Oh wow, a jet the US can use in conflicts they had no reason to get into other than "certain interests" or a manhunt.

[QUOTE=meppers;41712851]NASA's entire annual budget of 2012 was 16 billion dollars. From 1960 to 1969 the us government gave NASA 222.2 billion dollars (that's 2007 dollars). The development of the f-35 costs TWICE AS MUCH as the Saturn V rocket. THE F35 IS TWICE AS EXPENSIVE AS GOING TO THE MOON[/QUOTE]Goddamnit

[QUOTE=Zambies!;41712318]The F-35 tried to be a A-10, F-16, F-15, and a host of other aircraft in one package. The idea was good but it quickly became a disaster that threw cash on the pyre.[/QUOTE] They should just focus on one variant, the one that can replace the F/A-18 and anything below it, carrier variant would also be good as well.

So, what about the other countries that has F-35 orders, like Norway?

[QUOTE=Runar;41715440]So, what about the other countries that has F-35 orders, like Norway?[/QUOTE] They're better off.

god damn Battlefield 2 predicted it would exist by our life.

[QUOTE=meppers;41712851]NASA's entire annual budget of 2012 was 16 billion dollars. From 1960 to 1969 the us government gave NASA 222.2 billion dollars (that's 2007 dollars). The development of the f-35 costs TWICE AS MUCH as the Saturn V rocket. THE F35 IS TWICE AS EXPENSIVE AS GOING TO THE MOON[/QUOTE] the F35 program is actually eight and a half times more expensive than the Saturn V program was from 1964-73 in 2013 dollars

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;41711459]Think of the shit NASA could of done with that money.[/QUOTE] IIRC the entire Curiosity rover project has "only" cost about $3 billion. If the above figure is right, the Saturn V cost $40 billion in 2013USD. A depressing tale of modern political priorities.

[QUOTE=mblunk;41716664]IIRC the entire Curiosity rover project has "only" cost about $3 billion. If the above figure is right, the Saturn V cost $40 billion in 2013USD. A depressing tale of modern political priorities.[/QUOTE] Not really, could mean that NASA is becoming a far more cost effective department. Back in the 60s and 70s NASA would have been pretty much what the US military is today.

Yeah it's no secret that the DoD is absolutely horrid with cost effectiveness. I've also heard they're also unreasonably strict the with their budgets, like being unable to afford new office supplies whist buying surplus weapon parts they don't need, because that's what the budget calls for.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41712236]Could have built a interstellar space ship...[/QUOTE] I'm pretty damn sure an interstellar ship would cost a metric fuckton more than $400 billion. The propulsion system alone would be insanely expensive.

I wonder how many tokamak cold fusion reactors you could build with $400 billion

I still don't see why everyone hates the F-35. It's expected to last 50 years, replacing a lot of aging fleets, the cost is shared among 8 countries, and it isn't even the most expensive program we have as a single nation. Yeah it's expensive at nearly $400 billion, but that's over the course of nearly 20 years. Hell the NSA get that much money every 4 years

[QUOTE=meppers;41716925]I wonder how many tokamak cold fusion reactors you could build with $400 billion[/QUOTE] We could have built jaegers! Just because aliens haven't invaded doesn't mean they won't

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41716844]Yeah it's no secret that the DoD is absolutely horrid with cost effectiveness. I've also heard they're also unreasonably strict the with their budgets, like being unable to afford new office supplies whist buying surplus weapon parts they don't need, because that's what the budget calls for.[/QUOTE] As someone that has worked under DoD contracts I can verify this to be absolutely true. Working multimillion dollar simulators asking to refurbish them and when it comes time to paint we were forced to use garbage bags as paint tray liners. Meanwhile a warehouse stocked with bolts and o rings that cost thousands of dollars a piece. Tax dollars hard at work.

[QUOTE=catbarf;41711787]Looking at the cost of the F-35 program in a vacuum is kind of silly considering it is intended to replace aging F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s whose maintenance costs continue to steadily rise, and is intended to earn some money back through export. If we don't replace our existing aircraft then those costs are still going to exist. It's not like we'll be saving money by going ahead with the F-35, but it's also not like all the money earmarked for the F-35 program can be put into humanitarian efforts if it's canceled.[/QUOTE] Ditch F-35s, downscale the old fleet to 10% of current size. Done, happy, rich. [editline]5th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=scout1;41712212]The fact the F-35 hasn't fallen to politics' short sighted budget outlook (ignoring the sunk costs of equipment [B]THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED ANYWAY[/B]) is something short of amazing.[/QUOTE] Why? Just don't replace them as they get old. Ditch them. In worst case buy some French Mirages or Swedish Gripens for relatively cheap. Or Soviet era MiGs license built in China. [editline]5th August 2013[/editline] You are acting like USA [B]HAS[/B] to spend 4.4% of GDP on army yearly, one way or another, or the world would stop turning. [editline]5th August 2013[/editline] If USA cut the spending to, lets say, half, what do you think would happen? Mexicans would claim Texas? Putin would Restart Soviet Union and begin the invasion?

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41717683]In worst case buy some French Mirages or Swedish Gripens for relatively cheap. Or Soviet era MiGs license built in China.[/QUOTE] Do you honestly think anyone (let alone the US Military) would want to buy Soviet Military knockoff's from China? Why don't we buy some SKS's to replace our aging M16's while we're at it.

Why would they cancel the F-35 program? They were the most fun to fly in Battlefield 2, so clearly they should finish.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41717826]Do you honestly think anyone (let alone the US Military) would want to buy Soviet Military knockoff's from China? Why don't we buy some SKS's to replace our aging M16's while we're at it.[/QUOTE] Just pointing out how ridiculous the "issue" is. It's not like developing another uberjet for bazzilion dollars is necessary. Fully sufficient jets grow on trees these days. It doesn't have to be DA BEST FAIGHTAR to do it's job of DETERRING CONFLICT.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41717826] Why don't we buy some SKS's to replace our aging M16's while we're at it.[/QUOTE] Because the military doesn't want better weapons, they need x amount of soldiers to die due to their rifle jamming every year. SKS STRONG M16 IS PIG. [editline]5th August 2013[/editline] But yeah, F15s are perfectly good as far as multirole fighters goes. Just print out a handful of those and be done with it. Planes doesn't [I]have[/I] to be replaced every 30 years, just look at the B52, serving since 1955 and still best in it's class. [editline]5th August 2013[/editline] Maybe instead of developing one specific jet, they should see about developing improved technologies independently of eachother, and then when the time comes where they actually [I]need[/I] a new jet, slap all that tech on a set of wings like some sorta ready-made McDonalds burger of airborne death.

[QUOTE=scout1;41714678]So how much more money do you plan to spend on the replacement's replacement?[/QUOTE] Depends on what it is. If: [img]http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/8509/nys3.jpg[/img] Then: Shut up and take my money.

This is still relevant. [video=youtube;aXQ2lO3ieBA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA[/video]

Too late to quit now, let's ride this runaway train of wasted money into the ground.

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;41711664]A fucking disaster. 20% wouldn't give a shit and the other 80% would get drunk as fuck or buy guns and pot.[/QUOTE] everytime i get 1260 dollars for free the first thing i want to do is get drunk and then buy some guns and then smoke weed because weed is a bad dude thing to do

With that money, people would have been able to take classes showing them that not only is "would of" incorrect, but makes you sound retarded. But seriously, that is so stupid of them.

[QUOTE=MasterBlock;41711474]where do we get all this money[/QUOTE] debt

[QUOTE=Antdawg;41716735]Not really, could mean that NASA is becoming a far more cost effective department. Back in the 60s and 70s NASA would have been pretty much what the US military is today.[/QUOTE] NASA is becoming a lot more efficient in the way it handles things, but they still have a lot of management problems; ones that they've had from the start.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41717683] Why? Just don't replace them as they get old. Ditch them. In worst case buy some French Mirages or Swedish Gripens for relatively cheap. Or Soviet era MiGs license built in China. [editline]5th August 2013[/editline] You are acting like USA [B]HAS[/B] to spend 4.4% of GDP on army yearly, one way or another, or the world would stop turning. [editline]5th August 2013[/editline] If USA cut the spending to, lets say, half, what do you think would happen? Mexicans would claim Texas? Putin would Restart Soviet Union and begin the invasion?[/QUOTE] It costs money to buy planes, and if you want to buy 40 year old jets NOW, what're you going to do in the 50 years we're supposed to replace the F-35? Welcome to spending even more money for something worse than we have now.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;41714688]In all honesty, F-22's look cooler.[/QUOTE] But the F-22 is specifically air superiority, and the F-35 is a multi-role fighter.