Cost of Buying and Operating 2443 F35's: Estimated to be 1.3 Trillion - Polidicks

[QUOTE=GunFox;29950168]I dunno, the F-22 is a terrifying aircraft. Currently they are devising a way to make them work in conjunction with modified B-1B Lancer strategic bombers for, no this isn't a typo, air supremacy purposes. The B-1 would be outfitted with as many over the horizon air-to-air missiles as it can carry. The F-22 would use its stealth to penetrate deep into enemy air space and then use its targeting systems to transmit targets back to the B-1. The B-1, with its insane payload, would effectively be able to crush many air forces with a single payload and probably remain undetected in the process. Basically this would let one F-22 do the work of numerous fighter wings. How well the program will play out, or if it will continue to receive funding (I haven't even heard anything about it for some time already), is anyone's guess. But ultimately that is the sort of mission capability such advanced tech can provide.[/QUOTE] Suddenly tungsten augmented bum rape everywhere in the skies.

The F-35's are a good fighter, but when you look at other more modern fighters..... Well it just doesn't cut it..... Lets compare the new Russian Pak to the F-35. The Pak is cheaper 100 million to the 122 million F-35A (the cheapest one which still yet may go up in price). The Pak is faster, more agile, has the roughly the same stealth characteristics, a better sensor suite, a infrared sensor that could render in later versions traditional radar stealth redundant, larger weapon bays, higher G limits...... etc.

Regarding the F-22, I found this RAND presentation an interesting read: [url]http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=bravehat;29950271]Ah well I'm thinking in terms of surgery and the like to help recover from battle injuries and the like, and over here in the UK at least as far as my relatively uneducated knowledge goes the military healthcare here is pretty good.[/QUOTE] Here it is too, once they know whats going on that is. I got misdiagnosed 3 times before they figured out what was wrong with my legs, and they still don't know whats wrong with my kidneys.

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;29950317]The F-35's are a good fighter, but when you look at other more modern fighters..... Well it just doesn't cut it..... Lets compare the new Russian Pak to the F-35. The Pak is cheaper 100 million to the 122 million F-35A (the cheapest one which still yet may go up in price). The Pak is faster, more agile, has the roughly the same stealth characteristics, a better sensor suite, a infrared sensor that could render in later versions traditional radar stealth redundant, larger weapon bays, higher G limits...... etc.[/QUOTE] There is also the fact that the PAK-FA is an air superiority fighter and not a multi-role like the JSF, and is therefore built specifically to outstrip out maneuver and out gun other aircraft, it was built as the russian counterpart to the Raptor. [editline]20th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;29950334]Here it is too, once they know whats going on that is. I got misdiagnosed 3 times before they figured out what was wrong with my legs, and they still don't know whats wrong with my kidneys.[/QUOTE] Sucks man, hope they can work out what's up soon :buddy:

[QUOTE=bravehat;29950368]There is also the fact that the PAK-FA is an air superiority fighter and not a multi-role like the JSF, and is therefore built specifically to outstrip out maneuver and out gun other aircraft, it was built as the russian counterpart to the Raptor.[/QUOTE] The PAK-FA, or whatever it will turn out to be after development is in fact a multirole fighter. The Russian Federation simply doesn't have enough money to operate a myriad of new combat aircraft like its Soviet predecessor did.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29950431]The PAK-FA, or whatever it will turn out to be after development is in fact a multirole fighter. The Russian Federation simply doesn't have enough money to operate a myriad of new combat aircraft like its Soviet predecessor did.[/QUOTE] The Raptor is capable of multi-role as well but both these fighters are likely to be used solely as air superiority as both nations would likely rather not risking losing their best equipment just to take out a few tanks. The fact is they are both capable of being multi role fighters but it would be a waste of their capabilities.

Well building and selling 800 of these certainly will help Russia's economy. At the moment though they have quite a low debt to GDP percent when compared to the US. [QUOTE=bravehat;29950505]The Raptor is capable of multi-role as well but both these fighters are likely to be used solely as air superiority as both nations would likely rather not risking losing their best equipment just to take out a few tanks. The fact is they are both capable of being multi role fighters but it would be a waste of their capabilities.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=wikipedia]The F-22's ground attack capabilities are minimal. It has no Forward looking infrared, Laser designator or laser spot tracker and it cannot carry an external pod to provide these capabilities. It's ability to locate ground targets with radar is still under development and it can only carry a very modest bomb and fuel load in a stealthy configuration[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=bravehat;29950505]The Raptor is capable of multi-role as well but both these fighters are likely to be used solely as air superiority as both nations would likely rather not risking losing their best equipment just to take out a few tanks. The fact is they are both capable of being multi role fighters but it would be a waste of their capabilities.[/QUOTE] Sure, but my current understanding is that given the lack of a serious air threat to US forces in contingency operations, ground-attack for the F-22 was pushed onto it to possibly give it more use in today's conflicts, but to my knowledge it has never been deployed yet. The Russian Air Force still retains purpose-built ground-attack aircraft, so yeah, the PAK-FA would be more likely be used for air-to-air missions. [editline]20th May 2011[/editline] But IMO, the best air superiority weapon is a tank sitting at the end of the enemy's runway, or a few ballistic missiles loaded with conventional munitions targeted at enemy airfields. :v:

They should at least wait until they actually solve our budget issues before making a decision like this.

I wish someone would be smart enough and ballsy enough to say, "fuck it, let's split that and put it into education and healthcare."

Put it all into education, for healthcare that's a flash in the pan but that amount of cash could open up a lot of decent schools in areas that are generally gonna teach you how to barely read and write and then leave you to everything else yourself.

if you do the math the program costs 43 million yearly this is a sensationalist article

[QUOTE=thisispain;29949664]imagine 1.3 trillion dollars put into US healthcare over the span of 30 years[/QUOTE] No one would ever die in this country from disease. Ever.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;29951750]No one would ever die in this country from disease. Ever.[/QUOTE] nothing wrong with staying positive!

[QUOTE=thisispain;29949868]still :colbert: something is definitely not working in the us when it comes to healthcare, we spend more than the rest of the world per capita yet receive atrocious care[/QUOTE] Idk where you go to get treated but since I'm rich I get nothing but top notch. So I think the problem with healthcare in the US is that people are poor.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;29951975] So I think the problem with healthcare in the US is that people are poor.[/QUOTE] wow what a radical thought

[QUOTE=thisispain;29952002]wow what a radical thought[/QUOTE] uberman has been considered a retard since he joined anything he says you should just consider it invalid

[QUOTE=windwakr;29952468]Uh, you misplaced your decimal point there. 1,300,000,000,000 / 30 = 43,333,333,333.33 43.3 billion a year, not 4.3 billion. [editline]...[/editline] You misplaced your decimal point by a lot.[/QUOTE] stoner math requires no second checks

dude two joints plus like two more joints like infinity joints bro we'll pass out before we even run out of joints unless they smoke themselves sober

I personally have much love for the F-35. The F-22 doesn't make it redundant as many people think. The F-22 is for shooting down other aircraft; the F-35 is for reconnaissance and rapid-response ground attacks, both of which we could actually use right now.

[QUOTE=Echo 199;29953410]I personally have much love for the F-35. The F-22 doesn't make it redundant as many people think. The F-22 is for shooting down other aircraft; the F-35 is for reconnaissance and rapid-response ground attacks, both of which we could actually use right now.[/QUOTE] Do you really need to use 1.3 trillion dollars though? [editline]20th May 2011[/editline] Are they really that necessary?

[QUOTE=amute;29953507]Do you really need to use 1.3 trillion dollars though? [editline]20th May 2011[/editline] Are they really that necessary?[/QUOTE] Well, maybe not [i]that[/i] many of em.

You need like a handful, not over 2000.

[QUOTE=amute;29953580]You need like a handful, not over 2000.[/QUOTE] And that's not even including the costs to train 2000 pilots. In the end it's going to be a fuck ton of money.

Even then, if they saved the money, they'd just put it right back into the military industrial complex. [editline]20th May 2011[/editline] Nothing is going to rid America of its addiction to military any time soon.

I just hope that people remember it's the *Defense* Department, not the Let's Go Mucking About Indefinitely on Offensive Foreign Adventures Department, nor the Keep Employment Numbers Up in the Defense Industry Department. There's little need for gold-plated aircraft like the F-35 or F-22. Cheaper evolved variants of current aircraft, that's okay.

Last I saw, the Super hornets were built on relatively new air frames. I don't see why the Navy doesn't just keep using those? It isn't like any stealth coating is going to withstand the sea air for shit anyways. Now a few for the air force? Go for it. They could use the additional flexibility in a multirole fighter. Hell even a few for the navy if they want the nightmare of keeping them functioning in ocean air. The marines...well frankly I don't know why they have fixed wing aircraft in the first place. They are a part of the navy. Seems redundant to me. Not to mention their version sucks balls and doesn't even work.

throw old subway cars and planes into the sea (minus the crap), instant homes for fish

How much money are we spending on schools and infrastructure in the same 30 year period? I want to compare figures.