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

[QUOTE=credesniper;29979115]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?[/QUOTE] What a lot of people don't realize is that the US is the largest supplier of armaments in the world and there have been many times their enemies have had good high tech weapons because the US sold them those weapons at a previous time. There's actually been times where we've sold weapons to both sides of a war, which I guess is good because they aren't playing favorites, but there are many reasons as to why it is bad.

Best part about these costs, is that for each bolt its like 50 bucks. They're milking us for money and its full of bullshit :v:

It's not that much compared to our other areas of spending.

[QUOTE=crackberry;29978856]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.[/QUOTE] And about 100 times as shit. I can see it now, we start using the old lancasters and liberators, suddenly planes falling from the sky thanks to flak. [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;29979576]Best part about these costs, is that for each bolt its like 50 bucks. They're milking us for money and its full of bullshit :v:[/QUOTE] Each bolt is perfectly machine manufactured then checked and rechecked multiple times, let's not forget the lightweight strong alloys they're made off and the fact that they have to be able to withstand sonic booms, massive forces from combat and standard flying, the massive changes in atmosphere and pressure as well as weather and general wear and tear. And they still have to be switched after a few hundred flight hours. So yeah, you're TOTALLY being milked. dumbass. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - postal))[/highlight] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming. Yet again. Next is permaban." - postal))[/highlight] [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Extended. Was given yet another final chance, decided to come back on an alt and make it clear he doesn't care." - postal))[/highlight]

we have enough $$$ to kill those silly brown people but not enough for national health care, good education, etc. I want my tax dollars going only towards killing people and not towards those commie socialist programs. god bless america :patriot: [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] amen

[QUOTE=crackberry;29978856]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.[/QUOTE] If that job is sitting around at some base in Wyoming and doing fuck all, then yes any shit heap would do just fine. [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] I'll sell the government one of my turds for a mere $10 million and it'd see as much action as an F-35

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;29970320]which is why it's soldiers duty to protect civilians.[/QUOTE] By sending in robots to accidentally kill them? [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ogopogo;29977920]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] does it really matter? They're all pretty useless in such a massive supply. You need a few, not thousands of them. [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] Have one or two types of planes for certain tasks, not 6000 types of planes. [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=bravehat;29980056]And about 100 times as shit. I can see it now, we start using the old lancasters and liberators, suddenly planes falling from the sky thanks to flak. [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] Each bolt is perfectly machine manufactured then checked and rechecked multiple times, let's not forget the lightweight strong alloys they're made off and the fact that they have to be able to withstand sonic booms, massive forces from combat and standard flying, the massive changes in atmosphere and pressure as well as weather and general wear and tear. And they still have to be switched after a few hundred flight hours. So yeah, you're TOTALLY being milked. dumbass. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - postal))[/highlight] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming. Yet again. Next is permaban." - postal))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Bravehat defending this AND acting like an angsty prick, my god, what next, the sun shines?

[URL]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1090276-Cost-of-Buying-and-Operating-2443-F35-s-Estimated-to-be-1.3-Trillion?p=29949636&viewfull=1#post29949636[/URL] For you amute :love:

[QUOTE=amute;29982484] Bravehat defending this AND acting like an angsty prick, my god, what next, the sun shines?[/QUOTE] Smack talking a banned user, you stay classy amute.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29977416]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] Quite simply because the army of robots plows through your own army and if needed your own civilians, if you don't fight them. Army is a political threat, no matter if "living" or mechanical. This is another aspect. If you look at it from the other side, and you wanted to strike the civilians. After orders for significant slaughter of civilians, some soldiers can hesitate, even defect. Robots wouldn't have such moral breaks, and would be as effective at killing civilians as at killing enemy soldiers. [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] Thing is that over last fifty years, the top of the line technology DID completely change the face of warfare, however warfare on scale and level which haven't been yet seen. I am talking about clashes between superpowers on top of the technological line - USA, China, Russia, Europe. If these meet in a largescale conflict, it will be VERY technology dependent fight. As mentioned, there are over the horizon AA missiles which can be loaded on planes of size of a bomber, and single bomber could launch a salvo capable of destroying whole flights of enemy fighters. Success of this is dependent on recon on the enemy, their capability to use countermeasures, and such. There are satellites which can read the rank of an enemy officer anywhere on the planet. And to not to even mention nuclear weapons. The arsenal the superpowers have today could quite easily kill billions of people, and possibly have long term effects in form of nuclear war and such. The big nations decide to go for cheap shots in for on strikes against civilians, it will be quite probably nuclear strikes, and honestly, hell upon earth will be unleashed. Yes, the power and skill of every soldier is still important, but it gets less and less important with the progress of technology, and that at accelerating rate.

Take military funding, and put it into military funding. Stunning revelation. What next, put money from parks into parks to save money for parks. [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=MaiValentainu;29982581]Smack talking a banned user, you stay classy amute.[/QUOTE] He has an alt, and was banned for one day. You do realise he can, like, you know, come back, and like, you know, read it. Use your fucking head. [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] Like, seriously? You think one day, with an alt, is somehow showing some sort of horrible fact about me? Are you legit braindead?

You're not good with calendars are you?

[QUOTE=amute;29982602]Take military funding, and put it into military funding. Stunning revelation. What next, put money from parks into parks to save money for parks. [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] He has an alt, and was banned for one day. You do realise he can, like, you know, come back, and like, you know, read it. Use your fucking head. [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] Like, seriously? You think one day, with an alt, is somehow showing some sort of horrible fact about me? Are you legit braindead?[/QUOTE] I use fucking in my sentences to prove my fucking point you fucking idiot. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Extended - Flaming/trolling" - Starpluck))[/highlight] [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Extended - Alt of permabanned user" - Starpluck))[/highlight]

Why can't we just tell those companies to give us a decent price or shove it?

[QUOTE=MaiValentainu;29982642]I use fucking in my sentences to prove my fucking point you fucking idiot.[/QUOTE] You need to stop posting. Preferably forever.

[QUOTE=amute;29982667]You need to stop posting. Preferably forever.[/QUOTE] Don't get so upset, why you acting bashful? Don't you wanna help dada build a sand castle?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;29982659]Why can't we just tell those companies to give us a decent price or shove it?[/QUOTE] Cause as far as I know the few companies like Lockheed have a monopoly on american military aircraft production so they can charge mad prices.

[QUOTE=MaiValentainu;29982676]Don't get so upset, why you acting bashful? Don't you wanna help dada build a sand castle?[/QUOTE] didn't you make a thread in the music forum announcing you were leaving forever?

[QUOTE=MaiValentainu;29982676]Don't get so upset, why you acting bashful? Don't you wanna help dada build a sand castle?[/QUOTE] Uh [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;29982699]didn't you make a thread in the music forum announcing you were leaving forever?[/QUOTE] Sounds like him.

[QUOTE=thisispain;29982699]didn't you make a thread in the music forum announcing you were leaving forever?[/QUOTE] Yes

[QUOTE=MaiValentainu;29982717]Yes[/QUOTE] are you actually going to argue a point or no?

[QUOTE=amute;29982729]are you actually going to argue a point or no?[/QUOTE] No

So you're just trolling?

Nope, just came in to comment that one time. [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] And now I'm leaving. Good day to you, sir