The Pentagon wants a half-billion more dollars for the F-35

[Kellhound]

You want to put GPS collars on millions of people, for years at a time, so you can track their every move. To do that, they can't just be removable necklaces - they need to be securely fastened so they can't just be removed when they want to stay or there is no point to your proposal. How do you recommend getting around that? Shotgun collars:



Maybe we make them wear high-powered magnets so we can launch glaives at them like Wild Wild West?



Your proposal is crazier than the Yellow Star, if anything my analogy makes it sound better than it is. You don't think collaring people is going to isolate them from society? Make them easily identifiable? Distinctly different? Easy to treat as second-class non-citizens?

They ARE second class non-citizens, thats the whole point (unless they are here on a H1B visa, then they are lower than slugs most likely). And I actually prefer shaped explosive charges, much quicker.

[Yvaelle]

They ARE second class non-citizens, thats the whole point (unless they are here on a H1B visa, then they are lower than slugs most likely). And I actually prefer shaped explosive charges, much quicker.

But not nearly as fun to hunt through a corn-field?

[Skroe]

http://www.businessinsider.com/penta...r=US&IR=T&IR=T



But fuck single payer healthcare or universal healthcare am i right?

Absolutely.

The F-35 has finally righted the ship.

- - - Updated - - -

What the fuck?

2400 planes. That's like one plane for every ISIS member that still lives.
That's just insane.

Really, what the fuck?

It's replacing every F-16 in the Active Air Force and National Guard, along with all Harriers in the Marines and most, if not all F/A-18C/D Hornets for the Navy.

It's also 2400 planes over 30 years, in lots of about 120-150 per year. In actually, the number is a bit deceptive because, for example, the Air Force didn't buy F-16A's in 1994.... it bought the upgraded F-16C and sent the F-16A's to the National Guard.

Right now the USAF has ~900 F-16s, down from ~1800 a decade ago. Until last year, it was retiring about 200 F-16s a year. And while the latest F-16s are a lot better, the Air Force never bought them (it hasn't bought any since 1994). The Air Force will eventually cut down to 400 F-16s over the next decade as the F-35A is introduced before retiring the F-16 around 2030.

Right now the Air Force is also working on the ADVENT engine (under various names). ADVENT uses the F-35's baseline engines, the F135 and the canceled F136, as it's technologically baseline. A similar program in the 1980s produced the F119 engine used in the F-22 Raptor, which was modified into the F135 for the F-35. When ADVENT comes to a final design over the next 10 years, it will be used most likely in the next class of air superiority fighter, the replacement for the F-22, along with the probable replacement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (which is considerably different and far newer from the F/A-18C/D Hornet).

ADVENT is important because it addresses most of the criticism in the F135 in efficiency, range and speed (which to be fair, are the equal or greater than the planes htey are replacing for the most part). But the reason I said the "number is deceptive" is that when ADVENT is finalized, it opens the way up for a "second edition" of the F-35 that is included in that 2400 number.

The F-16, F-15, F/A-18 and F-14 were all re-engined and substantially upgraded over their lifetimes. The engines they debuted with are very different than the engines they fly with today. When those engines and technologies made their way into the active fleet, their predecessor models were sent to the National Guard.

The F-35 will be no different. It is not like the Air Force will have 1700 F-35As active at all once. The real number will probably be closer to 1400. Through ~2028 it'll be F-35As to replace the F-16s, totaling around 900ish. And then when ADVENT is ready, they'll likely buy upgraded "F-35Ds" to replace the older 400-600 F-35As and send those older A's to the reserve, ANG, or boneyard.

This will likely happen with the Navy as well, though probably not the Marines.

Honestly the Air Force needs way more fighter squadrons than it has. It's a quarter the size it was in 1994. But for that it needs a dedicated Air Superiority fighter, and not more strike fighters. An F-22C that is basically an F-35 in a F-22 suit would do the trick. The Air Force was ordered to study it by Congress last year. It should happen.

[vipers]

If you don't keep building new toys, what are people like Hillary Clinton going to sell to Saudi Arabia?

funny that Hillary Clinton try to get free health care to all americans but it is was more important so that rich is getting more money and they silence Clinton

here some more info

It’s estimated there are between 20,000 and 45,000 deaths a year due to lack of health insurance. Get the facts on mortality and health insurance in the US by reading our breakdown of past studies and reports below.
The Uninsured and Mortality Rates

A 2012 familiesUSA study shows that more than 130,000 Americans died between 2005 and 2010 because of their lack of health insurance. The number of deaths due to a lack of coverage averaged three per hour and that the issue plagued every state. Other studies have shown those statistics to be high or low, but all studies agree: In America the uninsured are more likely to die than those with insurance.

[Skroe]

So in retrospect... the costs are now so high that they shouldve just mad themselves a whole lot more F22's?

My country also ordered F35's but maybe the Eurofighter or Rafale Dassault were a better idea afterall.

It really depends on what you want out of your aircraft.

In terms of pure, highly agile within visual range air combat and pure aircraft performance, the Eurofighter is the best of them, with the Rafale in second. This type of air combat is obsolete.

In terms of Beyond visual range combat and being a multi-role aircraft, the F-35 is by far the most capabe. Putting some MBDA Meteors in a stealthy F-35 with it's sensor fusion is a very scary thing for any Russians stupid enough to engage one. The F-35 also has a built in electronic warfare suite in itself and it's radar is in theory, powerful enough to be considered a directed energy weapon. It could potentially fry enemy electronics.

In terms of cost effectiveness on a per-unit basis, Rafale is the most affordable.

In terms of cost effectiveness over the lifetime of the fleet, the F-35 is probably the best. Not only is there going to be many times more F-35s than there will be Eurofighters and Rafales combined (economies of scale), and not only is there a large European infrastructure footprint just to support F-35 logistics, but it's the matter of spare parts to consider. Fore very F-35, you have to pay for the care and spares for one engine. For every Rafale or Eurofighter, you have to pay for two per aircraft (since they are two engine jets).

It really depends what a country with a not-big defense budget (as a product of a small population) wants to pay for. Owning the Eurofighter and Rafale means costs potentially elsewhere, like in those engines or owning support craft (like dedicated EW jets, such as the EA-18G Growler) that you may not need with the F-35. Owning the F-35 means higher upfront costs, and perhaps a different kind of maintenance.

Without a doubt though, from a pure technological perspective, the F-35 runs circles around the Rafale and Eurofighter. It is legitimately not even close. But tech isn't the only element of the equation.

There is no "right" answer for this. All three jets have their strengths and weaknesses.

But one must consider the historical context. The F-16, which sold like hotcakes all over Europe, was always envisioned as a fighter for the US Air Force, and it's sale to Europe to replace older jets came rather unexpectedly in the 1980s. By contrast, the F-35 was planned from the get go to be an across the board upgrade and replacement to all partner countries that flew F-16s and wanted what comes next.

In almost every respect, the F-35 is exactly that - the F-22 modernized and enhanced into something F-16 sized with more focus on air to ground, which reflects how the F-16 was used (as opposed to envisioned). But the F-16 may be too ambitious for countries without large populations to pay for its costs, so something that was a step between - like the Rafale - may be more desirable from an economic perspective.

Point is, it's not an easy question, which is why you've seen Canada vacillate on it.

My perspective though: betting against US Aviation technology is a stupid bet. Folks said many of the exact same things they are saying now about the F-35 about the F-22. And now many of those folks wish we had bought more of them and fewer F-35s. Why? Because it took 5 years but the F-22 lived up to its promise.

The F-35 will as well.

[Kellhound]

But not nearly as fun to hunt through a corn-field?

Dont care about fun, just efficiency.