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

[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] Except the stealth, there are a number of other planes that are better for the role better. If they want to say they have "fifth generation" fighters, do what the US navy did and reclassify the F18 Super hornet as a fifth generation fighter. And as mentioned the sea air and salt will play havoc with the F-35's systems, if deployed on carriers. [QUOTE=BANNED USER;29955284]How much money are we spending on schools and infrastructure in the same 30 year period? I want to compare figures.[/QUOTE] Here is the US debt clock.... [url]http://www.usdebtclock.org/[/url]

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;29950032]What do you think was one of the reasons why i joined the military?[/QUOTE] Bombing brown people? [editline]20th May 2011[/editline] [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] Yeah, they're great for bombing brown people!

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;29958110]Bombing brown people? [editline]20th May 2011[/editline] Yeah, they're great for bombing brown people![/QUOTE] I'm questioning your intelligence at the moment, just saying.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;29955284]How much money are we spending on schools and infrastructure in the same 30 year period? I want to compare figures.[/QUOTE] For Education, I got about 1.7 trillion. After doing some math and research, I couldn't really find anything comprehensive. I may be completly off, and there's a bunch of factors i didn't take into account. So it may be more or less. For infrastructure, I got around 1.4 trillion over 30 years. [editline]21st May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Goblix;29958756]I'm questioning your intelligence at the moment, just saying.[/QUOTE] They don't actually bomb little brown people, right? RIGHT?

1.3 Tril over 30 years isn't bad, considering all of them together will cost 250ish Billion, then the operating costs over 30 years is pretty cheap. This doesn't include the fact that the F-35 will actually get cheaper with each unit produced

Why bother with F35s when drones are the future. If you get rid of the cockpit sustaining the pilot and whole life support system, you get rid of huge amount of dead weight. The unit would also be able to bear much bigger acceleration and such, as the pilot is usually the limitation. Also your pilot requirement goes from superhuman athletic elite to somebody who has know-how, sits on chair in base and presses buttons. Completely seriously, once going through training to become enough disciplined and reliable, the better mature video game players could become air aces of the future. Another thing is that if the aircraft gets shot down, the pilot is right away ready to pilot another one. A huge amount of money would be saved on pilots. Drop everything and start a project for fully fledged UAV fighter.

[QUOTE=OvB;29949827]As planes age they get harder to maintain, thus the more money you have to put into them. F-15's are falling apart, some even crashing recently due to mechanical failures. We got rid of the F-14 because the newer F-18s could do everything they could do and they were also falling apart. HOWEVER, F-22's are so advanced that they need just as much babying as an old F-15 probably does. My brother use to maintain C-130s that were older than him and during a Japanese Friendship Festival at his base in Japan where they had various aircraft on display. The F-22's were the only ones to not get off the ground because their shit broke. So were kind of fucking ourselves in the ass by making these things so complicated.[/QUOTE] I doubt it was because of Mechanical failure. At airshows with F-22s they are extremely cautious with the whether and so forth because if one crashed due to weather or a possible mechanical failure then our country would look like a bunch of tools purchasing overpriced aircraft. That said, when they do get off the ground it is pretty much guaranteed it is the most superior air to air aircraft on this planet with absolutely no competition.

The F-22 is incredibly temperamental when it comes to weather. It can't even take off in a heavier rain. It also requires around 30 hours of maintenance for 1 hour of flight. The F-22, or "fifth generation" is not like it is leaps and bounds ahead of fourth generation fighters, they are just a set of outliers, while better, it is not a massive difference. If infrared sensors come along, all that radar stealth could be for nothing.

This is seriously a bunch of fucking bullshit. Not only is this totally unnecessary, but the country is in a fucking budget crisis and 1.3 trillion could go towards [i]much[/i] more important things.

[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] It isn't atrocious, it's just dumb [editline]21st May 2011[/editline] People saying "bombing brown people" are completely idiotic, yes we use our fighters for war, big fucking surprise

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;29967883] People saying "bombing brown people" are completely idiotic, yes we use our fighters for war, big fucking surprise[/QUOTE] So it's idiotic of me to suggest that maybe we should put some money into education or healthcare rather than fucking planes we use to kill people? You have shown me the error of my ways.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29953869]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.[/QUOTE] I think the stealth is really just a bonus for the Navy, the real advantage is its vertical tack off and landing and it being a agile and fast fighter. That means you won't need a giant aircraft launching mechanism to put some decent planes into the air.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;29964431]1.3 Tril over 30 years isn't bad, considering all of them together will cost 250ish Billion, then the operating costs over 30 years is pretty cheap. This doesn't include the fact that the F-35 will actually get cheaper with each unit produced[/QUOTE] It's still excessive waste for something useless. [editline]21st May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ogopogo;29967379]The F-22 is incredibly temperamental when it comes to weather. It can't even take off in a heavier rain. It also requires around 30 hours of maintenance for 1 hour of flight.[/quote] Meanwhile, public schools are taking budget cuts.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;29965257]Why bother with F35s when drones are the future. If you get rid of the cockpit sustaining the pilot and whole life support system, you get rid of huge amount of dead weight. The unit would also be able to bear much bigger acceleration and such, as the pilot is usually the limitation. Also your pilot requirement goes from superhuman athletic elite to somebody who has know-how, sits on chair in base and presses buttons. Completely seriously, once going through training to become enough disciplined and reliable, the better mature video game players could become air aces of the future. Another thing is that if the aircraft gets shot down, the pilot is right away ready to pilot another one. A huge amount of money would be saved on pilots. Drop everything and start a project for fully fledged UAV fighter.[/QUOTE] I'll post this quote from another forum: [quote]When the insurgency in Iraq realized that "stand-up" fights with Coalition troops were basically fruitless due to the disparity in both troop quality and technology, they turned to IEDs and suicide bombers in an effort to weaken the political will of a force they couldn't defeat through conventional means. If two nations were locked in a struggle between robotic forces that could be easily replaced and whose loss represented no real political impact, I believe one or both nations would turn to attacks against the other nation's civilian population, either through direct military attack (nukes, bio-chem, etc.) or state sponsored terrorism and espionage. [b]This would switch the focus from the bloodless robotic war to a test of political will in the face of civilian casualties at home.[/b] I doubt that spilled hydraulic fluid will ever be enough to resolve a human war. Blood is required.[/quote] If the military wants to reduce the amount of blood being spilled by their personnel, then blood in the form of dead civilians will be the primary way of inflicting damage in a war of robots. Someone will have to pay the price.

Because the insurgents spilled so much blood of fighter/bomber pilots over the war. These machines aren't for fighting wars against bloodlusting insurgents. Life of a soldier also isn't any less valuable than a life of a civilian. Only difference is that soldier can fight for himself and civilian can't, which is why it's soldiers duty to protect civilians.

Oh please, put it into education and health? Don't be mad, put it into DARPA and mind control our enemies.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;29970320]Because the insurgents spilled so much blood of fighter/bomber pilots over the war. These machines aren't for fighting wars against bloodlusting insurgents. Life of a soldier also isn't any less valuable than a life of a civilian. Only difference is that soldier can fight for himself and civilian can't, which is why it's soldiers duty to protect civilians.[/QUOTE] Look beyond the small picture and think of the big one, beyond all this counterinsurgency bullshit. That quote basically says why robotic weapons carry with them their own problems. A war fought with unmanned weapon systems will lead to opposing sides killing each others civilians being the primary way of weakening the other instead of the robotic battlefield. It just how it works. Remember various axioms that attacking the enemy's weakness rather than his strengths are preferred? Civilians of a first-world nation, who think that they are totally disconnected from the destruction of war are a perfect weak spot for an enemy to exploit. Read Robert B. Asprey's "War in the Shadows" if you want to know more.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;29949801]That would only equivicate to 4.3 billion a year. While that sounds like alot, in the overall US budget thats a tiny slice. Not to mention that even though the US spends the most on its defense budget, a majority of the US's over all budget goes to medicare and medicaid[/QUOTE] 43 billion. not 4.3

[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] sniff... sniff... Smell that? that's the scent of a [I]Fanboy[/I]...

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29970780]Look beyond the small picture and think of the big one, beyond all this counterinsurgency bullshit. That quote basically says why robotic weapons carry with them their own problems. A war fought with unmanned weapon systems will lead to opposing sides killing each others civilians being the primary way of weakening the other instead of the robotic battlefield. It just how it works. Remember various axioms that attacking the enemy's weakness rather than his strengths are preferred? Civilians of a first-world nation, who think that they are totally disconnected from the destruction of war are a perfect weak spot for an enemy to exploit. Read Robert B. Asprey's "War in the Shadows" if you want to know more.[/QUOTE] Because nobody didn't and never does attack civilians when they are the weak spot, even when having the potential target of living troops. Civilians will always be as unacceptable target and as tempting weak spot, no matter who's going to guard them. Whoever is opposing remotely controlled/autonomous fighting force is either scared of the possibility they might go rogue or trying to conservatively preserve old system. But it's inevitable, and whichever world power employs such technology first, will gain complete superiority over their enemies.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;29974294]Because nobody didn't and never does attack civilians when they are the weak spot, even when having the potential target of living troops. Civilians will always be as unacceptable target and as tempting weak spot, no matter who's going to guard them.[/quote] As Westerners, we can collectively agree that attacking civilians is unorthodox. However, don't force Western ideals on other cultures. They are not going to oblige by your "targeting civilians is unacceptable" talk. If you have read "War in the Shadows" or have taken a look at the history of asymmetric warfare, civilians are part of the war. Let's look at it this way: If it's acceptable for the United States to drop all sorts of precision-guided munitions on country B and completely defeat its conventional forces, then it's acceptable for country B to "counterattack" the United States by committing acts of terrorism on U.S. soil or other "sneaky" methods to weaken American will through unexpected or unacceptable military or civilian casualties. That's the nature of asymmetric warfare. [quote]Whoever is opposing remotely controlled/autonomous fighting force is either scared of the possibility they might go rogue or trying to conservatively preserve old system. But it's inevitable, and whichever world power employs such technology first, will gain complete superiority over their enemies.[/QUOTE] Superior technology does not necessarily mean "complete superiority". Historical evidence indicates that superiority through technology alone usually happens when there is a [i]very[/i] large disparity in equipment capability combined with a big disparity in troop and commander quality. (Iraq vs. US in 1991 and 2003) This is something that we tech-obsessed Westerners have trouble realizing. Army units equipped with the latest in digital technology (Brand new Force XXI digital C4I systems and all that) and UAVs got their asses whopped at the NTC in the 1990s by Opposing Force units equipped with 1980s Soviet equipment surrogates using documented principles of Soviet maskirovka. Rotating Army units fought against the same type of enemy that they trained to fight and defeat for most of the Cold War, and they regularly lost. Today's advances in technology doesn't change that, despite claims that "We can do it right this time, we have the (fill in new toy here)!" My point is that all technology is vulnerable. All the enemy has to do is identify it and capitalize on it. My opposition to advanced technology is that we have a tendency to overly rely and depend on it, and therefore traditional skills and methods are seen as "unnecessary" or "obsolete". When people think that technology can make a side remove the "fog" and "friction" of war and gain dominance over the battlefield like if it's some kind of ultimate weapon, there's something wrong. When most Westerners believe that the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents are some inferior force that "makes things up", I doubt that even more technology will help in the long run against conventional foes prepared to fight and defeat American-style forces, especially when the US military has atrophied the skills which the average person thinks the US military is always good at. Here's a quote from a long-neglected US Army field manual once used by the Opposing Force training unit: [quote]Relying on advanced technologies produces its own problems. For example, a modern soldier, dependent on global positioning systems and digital links, may not be able to successfully navigate by map and compass (assuming the proper maps are available) and call for fire support once OPFOR jamming activities have disrupted those capabilities. While making these advanced technologies available to its forces, the OPFOR continues to ensure its forces train with older, simpler, yet highly effective techniques of navigation and control.[/quote] Hey, give these two articles a read: [url]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HFZSVprL0XUJ:fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/fog/fog.htm+http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/fog/fog.htm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.ca[/url] [url]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:csSGGFEIdXIJ:fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/techy.htm+bashing+the+laser+ranger+finder&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.ca[/url] Want more? Read page 70 of this PDF: [url]http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p124201coll1&CISOPTR=1141&CISOBOX=1&REC=3[/url] It's funny how many advocates of advanced military technology there are in this age. They always argue stuff like "step changes in capability" and "network-centric warfare" and "the transparent battlespace", and try to give the impression that people like me are out of touch with the hastening pace of technological progress, which is now accelerating so fast that it has dragged all the blood to the back of our brains.

Somehow, not supporting military funding is considered unpatriotic.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;29958110]Bombing brown people? [editline]20th May 2011[/editline] Yeah, they're great for bombing brown people![/QUOTE] it gets me hard too

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29975074]As Westerners, we can collectively agree that attacking civilians is unorthodox. However, don't force Western ideals on other cultures. They are not going to oblige by your "targeting civilians is unacceptable" talk. If you have read "War in the Shadows" or have taken a look at the history of asymmetric warfare, civilians are part of the war. Let's look at it this way: If it's acceptable for the United States to drop all sorts of precision-guided munitions on country B and completely defeat its conventional forces, then it's acceptable for country B to "counterattack" the United States by committing acts of terrorism on U.S. soil or other "sneaky" methods to weaken American will through unexpected or unacceptable military or civilian casualties. That's the nature of asymmetric warfare. [/quote] This is completely true, but it mostly confirms what I am trying to say. There will always be enemies who will go for your civilians, and there will always be enemies who won't go that low. Being afraid that killing robots won't be good for them enough so they will go kill civilians instead, while they otherwise wouldn't, sounds highly unlikely. [quote] Superior technology does not necessarily mean "complete superiority". Historical evidence indicates that superiority through technology alone usually happens when there is a [i]very[/i] large disparity in equipment capability combined with a big disparity in troop and commander quality. (Iraq vs. US in 1991 and 2003) This is something that we tech-obsessed Westerners have trouble realizing. Army units equipped with the latest in digital technology (Brand new Force XXI digital C4I systems and all that) and UAVs got their asses whopped at the NTC in the 1990s by Opposing Force units equipped with 1980s Soviet equipment surrogates using documented principles of Soviet maskirovka. Rotating Army units fought against the same type of enemy that they trained to fight and defeat for most of the Cold War, and they regularly lost. Today's advances in technology doesn't change that, despite claims that "We can do it right this time, we have the (fill in new toy here)!" My point is that all technology is vulnerable. All the enemy has to do is identify it and capitalize on it. My opposition to advanced technology is that we have a tendency to overly rely and depend on it, and therefore traditional skills and methods are seen as "unnecessary" or "obsolete". When people think that technology can make a side remove the "fog" and "friction" of war and gain dominance over the battlefield like if it's some kind of ultimate weapon, there's something wrong. When most Westerners believe that the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents are some inferior force that "makes things up", I doubt that even more technology will help in the long run against conventional foes prepared to fight and defeat American-style forces, especially when the US military has atrophied the skills which the average person thinks the US military is always good at. Here's a quote from a long-neglected US Army field manual once used by the Opposing Force training unit: Hey, give these two articles a read: [url]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HFZSVprL0XUJ:fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/fog/fog.htm+http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/fog/fog.htm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.ca[/url] [url]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:csSGGFEIdXIJ:fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/techy.htm+bashing+the+laser+ranger+finder&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.ca[/url] Want more? Read page 70 of this PDF: [url]http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p124201coll1&CISOPTR=1141&CISOBOX=1&REC=3[/url] It's funny how many advocates of advanced military technology there are in this age. They always argue stuff like "step changes in capability" and "network-centric warfare" and "the transparent battlespace", and try to give the impression that people like me are out of touch with the hastening pace of technological progress, which is now accelerating so fast that it has dragged all the blood to the back of our brains.[/QUOTE] That's why you have to progress technology while keeping the command in good condition. And what we are talking about here isn't just some change in combat transparency. You would lower the resource cost of your fighting unit significantly, increase it's performance, and put your soldiers out of danger, all at once. It's capable of completely change the whole situation. Of course it comes at cost, but the pros completely outweigh it.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;29977249]This is completely true, but it mostly confirms what I am trying to say. There will always be enemies who will go for your civilians, and there will always be enemies who won't go that low. Being afraid that killing robots won't be good for them enough so they will go kill civilians instead, while they otherwise wouldn't, sounds highly unlikely.[/quote] Why focus on killing robots when their destruction represents no real political impact in the short term? What's the prospect of a perceived-to-be morally sound, first world nation to engage in a robotic war with a similar nation? [quote]That's why you have to progress technology while keeping the command in good condition. And what we are talking about here isn't just some change in combat transparency. You would lower the resource cost of your fighting unit significantly, increase it's performance, and put your soldiers out of danger, all at once. It's capable of completely change the whole situation. Of course it comes at cost, but the pros completely outweigh it.[/QUOTE] The problem is that technology is increasingly seen as a solution rather than a tool. Like one of the articles said, "technology is a tremendous, but temporary, advantage. It also gives a false sense of security." You're arguing "step changes in capability" with this new technology, but capable soldiers led by good commanders are worth more than technology. For the West, increased quality is good, but even quality has its limits. Good German tank crews could put out impressive kill ratios back in WWII, but that only helped them to win tactical-level battles instead of producing success at the operational or strategic level. If the enemy exploits the cons, then the pros will be a waste, but I'll let the impossible theater war hand out the real answer. An example of the "solution rather than a tool" syndrome can be seen when American planners obsess themselves with direct action in the form of air strikes, high-tech "weapons porn" or special operations killings rather than sound strategy.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;29972471]sniff... sniff... Smell that? that's the scent of a [I]Fanboy[/I]...[/QUOTE] Not really. The F-35 is a terrible plane for its costs and supposedly great capabilities. I just used the Pak as it is another modern new fighter, and is the closest to being introduced into service. The only niche that the F-35 , well the F-35B, fits is replacing the harrier for the short takeoff airplane. The other models only really gain stealth over current fighters, something that may prove pointless in the end. The F-35 is simiply trying to replace too many different airframes. The F18 (not the super hornet) The A-10 The F16 The Harrier They have kind of trapped themselves with the development of this plane. There are no alternatives then the F-35, and they have invested to much money into it to back out.

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;29977920]They have kind of trapped themselves with the development of this plane. There are no alternatives then the F-35, and they have invested to much money into it to back out.[/QUOTE] If you make a bad investment you don't put more money into that investment. I'm not opposed to military research, but just because they put a lot of research and money into a project does that mean they should take it to the expected end of mass production.

We don't need $133 million dollar planes. We shouldn't have to spend that much. Just buy a bunch of older type bombers, and use those. Probably 1/3 as expensive and do almost the same job.

I can't remember the last time we were able to get military vehicles on a reasonable budget.

If our enemies are using technology far below ours, do we really need to bust out the best equipment? Guns, sure. But for aerial vehicles?