Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 (3 total)
05:16 PM on 07/13/2009
It's all about flag-wrapped corporate pork. Development contracts always end up costing nearly double after cost overruns. And you'll never see this kind of money thrown at troop pay or protective gear....not enough billions to skim.

And I'm not even sure that the $44,000 includes pilot training, maintenance contracts, or replacement parts.

The main reason the U.S. "needs" F22s is so that all the F18s are now obsolete and we can sell them to Third World air forces, along with the same long-running maintenance contracts.

And now, even before all the F22s have been delivered, Congress and the Pentagon are already whining for the F35. Which, of course, will also be sold to trusted allies in order to ramp up the gross profits of Northrup Grumman et al.

And if you think this is sick, just wait for the big, bad Star Wars satellite missile defense garbage to come down the pike.
09:20 AM on 07/14/2009
Who are we selling the F18s to? I want to know because recent history shows that we end up in war with countries that we sell our won weapons to.
05:09 PM on 07/13/2009
We talk of the men and machines and how much they cost to prosecute the wars, but nobody has, so far, considered the tons of oil, diesel and gasoline wasted. In addition to the planes, think of the cost of maintaining three aircraft carriers, sitting, doing nothing and still burning fuel. And so forth.
06:51 PM on 07/13/2009
aircraft carriers today are run by nuclear power if I am not mistaken.
Solar is cheap, free, and clean
11:07 PM on 07/13/2009
The military are the greatest consumers of petroleum than the average citizen, by way ... far.
12:13 PM on 07/13/2009
Ridiculous. We could get by with another upgrade of the FA-18 Super Hornet and the venarable A-10 Warthog which is a ground support aircraft which has proved its worth. Dump the F-22 and the joint strike aircraft F-35.
09:17 PM on 07/13/2009

I concur with your the UK our Chief of the Defence Staff keeps harping on about 'fast jets'......

If we need to keep the UK aerospace industry going (which we do) I'd scrap Eurofighter and simply buy the licences for the A-10, Harrier II, hell, even the 'old, low and slow' A-6 to give UK forces decent GA close support capability.

As for the UK's well know shortage of combat helicopters, I see on the 'Net that the US Air National Guard has dozens of airframes 'stood still'. I would suggest that even a 'Huey' (or ten) would be better than moving UK forces around by road.

Will our UK politicians do the sensible thing and spend more....will they.....insert expletive of choice.
12:07 PM on 07/13/2009
The only REAL purpose in funding flying Edsels like this is to keep the factories of the military-industrial complex humming along. Is there any doubt about just why the sub-contractors for weapons systems like this are deliberately spread out in just about every state's congressional districts? The people who promote and vote for these things don't care a whit about the taxpayers' money. It's all about getting re-elected !!
07:48 PM on 07/13/2009
Our Congressional district (PA-7) has a real winner, the OSPREY (sort of a cross between a helicopter and a tilted duck). Can't fly very well, no one wants it, but you better believe that our Representative is not about to wring its neck. A dangerous and perfectly useless bit of junk, but costs plenty and insures 400 votes.
Solar is cheap, free, and clean
11:08 PM on 07/13/2009
hear, hear, ManassasMan.