Americans Have Spent Enough Money On A Broken Plane To Buy Every Homeless Person A Mansion

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: WeRpeons



And yet, for all that spending our military is in bad shape. The Air Force is flying planes twice the age of the crews flying them. Our main interceptor/fighter, the F-15 is well over 20 years old, has been limited to about 6-7Gs, and Mach 1.2 or so. At one point 25% of the F-16 fleet had cracks in the wings or bulkheads, as well as being over 20 years old on average.



The Navy has been pushing off maintenance on ships to the point where last year, we had two carriers available for deployment if anything happened around the world. The rest were down for maintenance/refueling, and their escorts and sub were undergoing major maintenance, and just trying to catch up on routine maintenance.

Exactly! How is this possible!? We have spent more than all the other nations combined, not just in one year, but in many and this is still the situation!

The money is going somewhere, the arms industry has never been bigger, however what exactly do we the taxpayers have to show for it? The ability to say we spend more on military than the entire rest of the world combined!

False statistic. We do not spend a great amount per GDP. It's up there, but not the top.

a reply to: elementalgrove

When it was first noticed, it was Cohen. He only had the job of announcing the problem, and overhauling the system, which was done. Some of the transactions were tracked to double listings in the books,

Complicating matters, he said, is that DoD has 674 different computerized accounting, logistics and personnel systems.

Most of the 674 systems "don't talk to one another unless somebody 'translates,'" he remarked. This situation, he added, makes it hard to reconcile financial data.

Billions of dollars of DoD taxpayer-provided money haven't disappeared, Zakheim said. "Missing" expenditures are often reconciled a bit later in the same way people balance their checkbooks every month. The bank closes out a month and sends its bank statement, he said. In the meanwhile, people write more checks, and so they have to reconcile their checkbook register and the statement.

DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department's "lost" expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop.

web.archive.org...://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002/n02202002_200202201.html

Copy and past link for full article.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Which is why the US needs to invest smarter.

The F35 has had it's problems, but we will see where it's capability ends up. It's apparently the Marines version that is causing the bulk of problems because they want it to have Harrier vertical takeoff abilities which sounds like a massive CCP.

The Raptor is still the best out there, which is why the US plays that card so close to their chest.

a reply to: Collateral

Is the Raptor the best we have? Or is it just the best we allow into the open? I wonder sometimes.

a reply to: Collateral

The F-35 in several areas will be better than the F-22. It's the classified, and less than advertised technology that is what makes the F-35 so valuable, and so required. When you look at new Russian air to air weapons coming out, the next few years are going to be scary to be a legacy pilot for the allies. The F-35 is going to change that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The huge expanse and up keep of military bases around the world and the over expenditures of black projects has to put a dent into how much the government can afford to maintain a huge military. They need to start having our Allies take on the responsibility for their own defense and stop spending billions on foreign military aid. We need to have a smaller and more efficient military that's used to protect our homeland and not to engage in conflicts that are not in our neighborhood.

a reply to: WeRpeons

That would be one reason for the F-35, and selling it to so many allies. It gives them more ability to defend themselves, and to take some more of the mission on.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Japan and Australia are huge assets to the US. Removing investment in those areas would be a disaster.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Zaphod58

The huge expanse and up keep of military bases around the world and the over expenditures of black projects has to put a dent into how much the government can afford to maintain a huge military. They need to start having our Allies take on the responsibility for their own defense and stop spending billions on foreign military aid. We need to have a smaller and more efficient military that's used to protect our homeland and not to engage in conflicts that are not in our neighborhood.

Part of that is to keep the amount of nuclear weapons down though. Without a superpower military nuclear weapons are very attrative.

Every fighter generation has cost roughly 4 times its predecessor since the P-51 was replaced by the F-86.

Every system from the F-4 to the F-15 to the F-22 have had their critics insisting the program is a massive failure etc, inferior to its counterparts and a irresponsible pork fest for Congressmen with strong aerospace industry presence in their respective districts.

A lot of the F 35 criticism is politically motivated and short sighted.

The legacy fleet is becoming dangerously old and needs to be replaced, many of the aircraft are flying three times the original air-frame life and are limited in maneuverability as a compromise.

The recent hoopla with Russia should be a good reminder to all that while we don't need F-35's to hunt goat herders in Afghanistan, the next war will be anything but.

Theodore Roosevelt's proclamation to "Walk softly and carry a big stick" is as true today as it was a hundred years ago and the F-35 is a game changer to anyone who has a firm understanding of modern aerial combat doctrine.

The F-35 DAS system combined with shared information data links and off boresight missiles are going to rewrite the WVR doctrine of the future, just as airborne tracking radars and guided weapons changed the past.

The F-35 combines an amount of inherit stealth into an aircraft with an internal weapons bay, large internal fuel stores that can cruise supersonic without afterburner and matches or exceeds a clean F-16 in kinetic performance.

It has a new AN/APG-81 AESA radar that is not only the most sophisticated radar of its type, it is so powerful it can be used to attack enemy electronics with a focused beam like a localized EMP.

The best part, the F-35 avionics suite is still far from realizing its full potential.

a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Well said.

And for those who say WW2 proves quantity always beats quality .... WW2 does not always suggest that.

50 Japanese planes attacked the USS Laffey. Four FM-2 Wildcats engaged and defended with 0 losses until they ran out of fuel. Later 12 American Vought F4U Corsair fighters joined the fray.

I suggest you all look at the story of the Laffey, there is a short video somewhere. Quite an emotional and awe inspiring tale.

All great points being made from a military mindset.

I see the world in a much different light then that of aggression. Apparently based on those contributing to this thread we must rule the world with military might as opposed to humanitarian actions. There will come a time when all of the weapons we create will do one of too things, be used and bring about our destruction or be dismantled because we used our minds and hearts to figure out ways where we can share the resources of the world amongst ourselves.

Perhaps we are destined to have a battle to end all battles so to speak.

Thank you for your points gentleman, I see how from your view, the F-35 has been a success.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
All great points being made from a military mindset.

I see the world in a much different light then that of aggression. Apparently based on those contributing to this thread we must rule the world with military might as opposed to humanitarian actions. There will come a time when all of the weapons we create will do one of too things, be used and bring about our destruction or be dismantled because we used our minds and hearts to figure out ways where we can share the resources of the world amongst ourselves.

Perhaps we are destined to have a battle to end all battles so to speak.

Thank you for your points gentleman, I see how from your view, the F-35 has been a success.

If the US decides to go humanitarian tomorrow and gets rid of it's military you think China and Russia will follow suit? If so you do not see the world at all.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It would not be that simple, however working toward mutual disarmament would be a start. Everyone keeps the kife to each others throat until someone has the courage to put it down.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It would not be that simple, however working toward mutual disarmament would be a start. Everyone keeps the kife to each others throat until someone has the courage to put it down.

The US has made steps. Last I checked Russia invaded Ukraine.

Wait, I want a bigger mansion too, I want to get in on Government handouts like the rest... Its not fair...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Funny last time I checked NATO has been encroaching upon Russian borders for over 20 years

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Funny last time I checked NATO has been encroaching upon Russian borders for over 20 years

Last I checked that was because the former Satellite States are terrified of Russia and look for allies to protect them. Russia has only itself to blame.

To counter the rationalization that funding a weapons-system such as the F-35 will lead to tech and advances that might propel us ahead decades for commercial/public use...why not simply fund commercial/public endeavours into the same arenas of study?

To put it another way, I realize that optical tech in military use is easily 10+ years ahead of uses in medical applications. Why not simply divert that funding to non-military (aka civilian) tech? As evidenced by private-funded space initiatives like Richard Branson etc, the dividends would easily pay off.

a reply to: TXRabbit

Read the post, it's answered.