Trillion-Dollar Jet Has Thirteen Expensive New Flaws

Relatively expensive but well worth the expense.

If not for the guvmint who else would be able to pay for cutting edge research and development.

Mistakes have been made and acknowledged. The only folk who never make mistakes are those who don't do anything.

It must be endured.

The US is not making this for their sole military consumption. Her friends are also onboard and waiting eagerly (hence the bit in the name that says "Joint"). The production run will be greater than the few score mentioned once the whole foreign and domestic team is kitted out. As in everything the consumer pays and these high development costs will be born by all eventual beneficiaries.

The guvmint should spend even more and get a move on before "the other side" gets a leg up of their own.

Just because the "guvmint" is paying is not a reason to fleece the customer - ultimately the tax payer.

I agree with Gavilan: A contract was made and, assuming the customer has not changed any requirements, it should be honoured. If the supplier can no longer do so, then he/it withdraws, paying penalties where stipulated.

The culture of "cost-plus" government funding I thought was long dead. Looks like we've got a couple of zombie vampires to deal with. Pass the garlic and steak stake!

I don't think this is a case of fleecing the customer. Rather, this was a very long and hard race between Boeing and Lockheed for a prize that was excessively huge.

The end result is that both contractors pushed their numbers to the lower limit to win the contract; essentially, underbidding themselves to the point where they could not perform to contract. I would be very surprised if Boeing would not have found themselves in a similar fate had they been awarded the contract.

The contract also had financial wiggle room because much of the work was based on research and development yet to be done. It was understood that there was technology that required development and as you know invention is an open ended thing.

I like Gavilan's approach to contract, but in the real world it would be flawed due to the complexity of the requirements. This is not like having a room added onto your house.

If we have learned anything it is that computer modeling of advanced and exceedingly complex systems is still not a mature engineering practice. It was this modeling that was the backbone of the agreement to allow advanced production ahead of working out all of the kinks. That was an interesting engineering premise, but as we all know that fixing mistakes late in the life cycle is exactly where it is most expensive.

Typically, consumer based and commercial products are not produced using such a model (Microsoft being the exception) because the market is fairly intolerant of paying for those post release failures. Perhaps our government should have been more like the private sector market in this regard and demand a released product with more of the issues resolved.

Another way of looking at this is that the government either required a one-shoe fits all approach or was sold on a one-shoe theory in an effort to reduce long term cost. The idea is tantalizing, but it is difficult (if not impossible) to make a single sized shoe that everyone can wear comfortably. It is also more dangerous because any single flaw is likely to propagate through all versions of the design, thus rendering all aircraft at risk (potentially grounding the whole fleet at a time of war) and leaving our military vulnerable and understaffed. On the surface it may seem wasteful to have multiple designs on the tarmac by different vendors, but the potential for a single point failure to ground the whole fleet is virtually nonexistent.

I am left wondering if halting the F-22 production early was a wise move. Yes, the F-22 was very expensive, but if the production line was allowed to continue, subsequent costs for additional airframes and their long term maintenance would have continued to fall. When you compare the cost of the last F-22 to the latest revised cost for the F-35 we find the F-35 cost is 2/3 that of the F-22.

I suspect that the final cost for the F-35 will be higher, still. Perhaps exceeding 75% of the final F-22 cost. That begs the question as to whether the F-22 could have been made at an even lower cost, particularly if they spun off a less specialized version for a more generic role.

This might have allowed for a more specialized role for the F-35 as a Harrier replacement for the Marines and Navy, which would have been an easier engineering target to achieve.

"I don't think this is a case of fleecing the customer. Rather, this was a very long and hard race between Boeing and Lockheed for a prize that was excessively huge."

Any chance that a little "collusion" might have been taking place. Like - I get this contract you get the next kind of thing? Nawwww - not possible.

Gavilan

sometimes in sectors where there is a small number of companies in that industry and they all know each other , they will meet and agree who is going to win , the winner puts 40 % on top and shares half of that with the other tenderers

i have seen investigations and court action where some have been caught , they have had a very very small slap on the wrist and they run off the do it again .

The end result is that both contractors pushed their numbers to the lower limit to win the contract; essentially, underbidding themselves to the point where they could not perform to contract. I would be very surprised if Boeing would not have found themselves in a similar fate had they been awarded the contract.

then why bid, there is a reason that they bid it that way, because they then can charge them (renegotiate) after the award of the contract.

You are judged by performance not producing.

Spank them, make them hold up to their end of the bargain, or have some very high executives become accountable (you can go to jail if you bid below profitability, to keep your competitors out) and award it to the next highest bidder. And hold them accountable in the same way.

Who here expects the final cost to be in reason to the bid. Everyone who is accountable does.

I wish people who see articles like this would notice that it's a Gizmodo article; i.e., mostly useless. (I think Gizmodo's mission statement is: We don't know diddly about technology, but we'll report on it anyway.)

I read through the article, and went to the link, to see what these '13 Major Flaws' were, and here's what I read:

First and foremost, the review said that nothing was found that would indicate the program ought to be canceled. The 13 issues fell into 3 groups: Five Major issues, Three Potentially Major issues, and Five Moderate issues. The following is a synopsis.

Five Major Issues: Helmet Mounted Display problem, is not an aircraft problem per se, it has to do with the optics and imaging within the HMD; Fuel Dump is for the STOVL aircraft only, when in STOVL mode; Integrated Power Package is a reliability and maintainability issue, not an aircraft issue per se; Arresting Hook is obviously a problem for the Carrier Variant only; Classified Issue ...? Probably stealth, but to what extent is not known.

Three Possible Major issues (these are all related to flight test): More buffeting than predicted during high angle of attack flight; Fatigue testing, and overall Test Execution aren't far enough along to establish a confidence trend.

Five moderate issues: Software - multiple versions of software have been released and software management consumes time and resources; Weight margins are very tight; Thermal testing isn't scheduled to be completed until 2014; Logistics - again not an aircraft problem per se; Lighting protection isn't scheduled for completion until 2014-16.

So that's it. Pretty much typical development issues, some program-related rather than actual aircraft-related. The reason for the concern was that management expected these issues to have been mitigated through the use of new software tools for communication and integration between the far-flung engineering groups working on the aircraft. Management probably did not take into account the time spent having to learn the use of these software tools, that the software tools themselves would evolve over time, that the software tools effectively add another layer of management and increase program inertia, and that the software tools can contain flaws that need to be worked.

While I would agree that this may up-play the issues with the program, I would not discount or downplay the issues with the program.

As you know, issues are like an iceberg. Yes, we may have 13 major issues, but there are probably an order of magnitude more critical findings and another order of magnitude of observations on the squawk list.

The real issue with the F-35 program is that it is arriving much later than promised at a cost much higher than promised. The latest squawk list simply punctuates that the delivery schedule will continue to slip and the cost will continue to rise.

While this may be the status quo for most military projects, the magnitude of this project and the economic hardships that we are facing combine to make the perfect storm, as they say. The F-35 production numbers have been trimmed downward as international partners have reduced their intended purchase numbers and a second round of trimming (both domestic and internationally) is highly likely.

All of this erodes the confidence in successful completion of the project and increases the final cost of the aircraft. It is not unlikely that this can snowball out of control, which is the real concern over the program from domestic customers and the international players as well.

I wasn't intending to downplay the issues. Yes, some of them are serious. I just meant that none of these issues is a show-stopper or much different from other types of large military programs. These tough times for the economy and the huge deficits the government is running puts a lot of pressure on a program like this; and then on the other hand you have the apparent massive military build up taking place in China.

You are right to the point with your comments that Boeing and LM drove their prices down to win, while knowing there was much development left to do. But I think overall the LM design won on technical grounds with 2 key points: 1. The airframe required no special modification for the 3 variants as compared to the Boeing design which did need to modify the airframe to accommodate STOVL, and 2) Overall vehicle shape ('looks', if you like) which made the Boeing version look a bit ungainly and perhaps more of a challenge for carrier landings.

I only have one question:

Who, exactly, are our intended targets, when no one else on the planet has anything close to our current fleet of fighters?

Or are we building weapons to fight a hypothetical enemy that might possibly exist in the future?

Okay............two questions.

Weapon systems like this serve two purposes:

1. They act as a deterrent. It is like keeping an armed security guard in your parked car. Thieves see the situation and move on to someone else that is easier to pick on.
2. In the event of a war we have a significant advantage to get in and neutralize the enemy's defense systems (i.e., radar. ground to air missiles, AAA, etc.) because our planes are hard to see or detect.

You may remember the first Gulf War where the F-117s were pulled out much to the surprise of the Iraqis and the Soviet Union, which provided the defenses for Iraq as a test bed.

Not only did we utterly succeed in Iraq, but when the Soviets saw how ineffective their defense systems were they silently agreed that they no longer had an ability to keep up with the US. That was the last nail in the coffin for the Soviet Union and precipitated its collapse.

It would be folly to believe that we no longer have threats to be concerned about. Russia is rebuilding its forces and adding high technologies to their arsenal. The PAK FA 5th generation fighter is just an example of such a vehicle. Russia also has no bones about selling this new technology to our enemies, like Iran, which allows Russia a mechanism to test the effectiveness of their equipment against NATA and the US.

On that same note, it is believed in the inner circles of the military and CIA that Russian designed spoofing equipment may have been responsible for the recent loss of the RQ-170 drone in Afghanistan. I don't have any more intel on that. Things have gone quiet on that one.

China is also a growing military threat. Having superior equipment gives us the only equalizing card over a Chinese army with a total of 4.8 million combatants. That card is slowly being eroded away with Chinese advancements.

I really hope that we never have to use these advanced platforms in anger. If that is true, then we really are getting our monies' worth, but if we need them it is good to know we have the best.

The F-35 is sort of like owning a gun. It is better to own one and never use it than need one and not have it.

I understand the argument, but I'd hate for us to do the same as the Soviet Union did, and spend ourselves into oblivion.

The F 117 is an awesome machine, but I'm pretty sure the USSR was already toast before the Gulf war.

While the die was already cast for the Soviet Union, the Gulf War sealed their fate.

The most important thing that the F-117s and our high technology did for us was save lives!

Priceless.

True. But we'll have to wait and see how that pans out in the long term, now that the former Soviet Union is selling weapons and technology to anybody that will pay for it.

I hope the cold war doesn't end up looking like the good ol' days.

Call me paranoid, but somehow I'm not getting a warm fuzzy feeling about Iraq either.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/12/u-s-to-sell-iraq-18-more-f-16-warplanes/

I have been hinting for some time that the Cold War is not over. It is resurfacing as Russia skillfully reasserts itself in the Balkans and even in Europe.

Iraq will fall to Iran shortly now that we have vacated Iraq. Iran has been working carefully to infiltrate into the Iraq government, military, police, and infrastructure. While the fall will not be externally broadcasted in the sense you will see armies rolling over the country, the Iraqi government will be more of a puppet regime with Iran pulling the strings.

Over the last year a covert war has been waged in the region basically aimed against Iran. Even Turkey and saudi Arabia are playing parts to attempt to derail or at least contain Iran's power ambitions.

Iran holds a very big ace in the deck in that they can punish the world by closing the Strait of Hormuz and mining the surrounding waters. While this only creates an annoyance for the US military it will shut down oil and natural gas in a very big way. I have seen analysts' scenarios for combating or countering this Iranian threat and it requires a huge military effort to accomplish, more than what we have applied to Iraq.

The sale of F-16s to Iraq is humorous. It is simply political window dressing. Iraq's enemies are not external to their borders, but within their borders.

any war that america is involved in revolves around the rich boys at the top becoming richer through inflicting death , so war is a business to them , and the american public are deceived by their own media into thinking they are the global saints second only to god.

10 % of deaths in World War 1 were civilians
50 % of deaths in World War 2 were civilian
70 % of deaths in Vietnam .... ..were civilian
90 % of deaths in Iraq ......... ...were civilian

America calls it Operation Iraqi Freedom.

in time , Karma will turn the circle

Kissinger admitted that the war on Laos was a mistake based on incorrect beliefs , Laos had more bombs dropped on it than were dropped in the whole of world war two , whose pockets did that money go to ?

Iraq war has "contractors" making billions every month at the expense of US and iraqi lives , maybe those contractors will use the money to build new churches so they have somewhere to go and confess their sins .

According to Wikileaks, there were roughly 66,100 civilians deaths out a total of about 109,000 deaths, or just under 61%, not 90%. This includes thousand of civilians killed by enemy forces and IEDs set off by 'insurgents', but the exact breakdown is unknown.

It is estimated there were 600,000 executions carried out under the regime of Saddam Hussein against Iraqi citizens.

In WWII the number of civilian deaths due to military action and 'crimes against humanity' is estimated between 37,600,000 and 55,200,000. This was about 66% of the total number of deaths, but the numbers are estimates so the percentage might be somewhat higher or lower.

were did you find these numbers?

And what was the data structure? As to civilian deaths, how, where and by whom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

It appears our spending exceeds that of all other nations ­------------------ combined!!!

Are we really so inefficient as warriors that we must maintain this kind of relative spending in order to ensure our security? Can we even survive as a nation with this kind of sustained expenditures?

Any conflict with the S.C.O. will be fought without space based assets. Can we prevail in such a battle space with our existing tactics and order of battle? Will these hugely expensive weapons systems still be effective against far superior numbers in a battle space where there will be no GPS, no space based communications or intelligence assets?

Perhaps the potential strategic blunder of underestimating the capabilities our adversary is eclipsed only by over estimating our own.

I think a sober look at the realities of Geo-politics and economics has us fighting the next conflict in a logistically impossible battle space, blind, and broke.

Wishing we would have spent some of that money on A-10s and Rotary Wing slug fest fighters won't change the outcome. The righteousness of cause won't change the logistics of tactical battle or the economics of strategic outcome.

Are we so enthralled by what we have in our hands that we fail to see what is in our path?

Gavilan

Your logic sounds good on the surface, but you fail to note that the US is a superpower and we have many, many treaties with foreign nations to act as their defense as well as a geopolitical need to extend our power around the world.

This is the reason why our military costs are so high. If we were true xenophobes we could possibly spend less, but the consequences for that would make us a much poorer nation.

Secondly, you might want to (if you are interested in this subject) read about military tactics and history. Command, control, and communications (C3) are the deciding factors in any conflict in any theater. It is the central reason why we attempt to destroy the enemy's C3 at the start of any conflict. Remember a famous general in Iraq, "First we are going to cut its head off, then we are going to kill it"?

This is where space based technologies provide a critical edge. It provides a way to know where your enemy is, what they are doing, as well as the same for your forces so that you can coordinate your efforts.

Even ancient military strategy relied on C3. If you don't know what is going on you are doomed to die.

As far as our national expenditures, I would agree that we overspend in the military budget and could do a better job. However, the bulk of our government spending waste is in the social services. We have spent 100 years laying down those tracks and they are leading to a cliff.

Politicians hand out social services as a means of buying votes to the point where 40% of every dollar promised in services has to be borrowed.

This is the real root of the problem - we are simply spending more money that we have for the sake of political power. You should be painfully aware of that living in California.

It's always a good idea to heed the lessons of history.

http://www.rome.info/history/empire/fall/

from your link.........

During the latter years of the empire farming was done on large estates called latifundia that were owned by wealthy men who used slave labor. A farmer who had to pay workmen could not produce goods as cheaply. Many farmers could not compete with these low prices and lost or sold their farms. This not only undermined the citizen farmer who passed his values to his family, but also filled the cities with unemployed people. At one time, the emperor was importing grain to feed more than 100,000 people in Rome alone. These people were not only a burden but also had little to do but cause trouble and contribute to an ever increasing crime rate.

We have a similar case today where big supermarket chains are buying farms to lower their costs and sometimes importing asian farm workers to run them and also using monopolistic pressures to screw any other farmers to accept low prices for contract supply.

farmers get break even prices for their produce for example 47 cents per kg for an item that the supermarket sells for # 4.50 per kg , so the big boys get richer and the little guys get screwed down to nothing.

farming was great when it was done to feed people , now its done to screw people for $$$ .

loss of integrity in anything is likely to undermine its foundation.

quote "but you fail to note that the US is a superpower and we have many, many treaties with foreign nations to act as their defense as well as a geopolitical need to extend our power around the world.

---

sure..... US has many treaties but conducts itself in a way that creates new enemies with every bomb dropped on civilians around the world.

Big business entities and "the hawks" have been profiting from war for 40 years . CI A has been engineering wars between foreign countries to destabilise them socially and economically , and then make money selling arms to both sides.

They target countries that have resources ..to get cheap access to those resources , sometimes assassinating presidents then setting up dumb puppet governments who later turn and become enemies to the US.

Africa and South America were hotbeds for CI A activity because they have population and resources , if they were allowed to prosper and become educated they could have been a threat to US dominance , instead they have been engineered to fight each other causing social and economic disharmony... " divide and conquer "

where the CI A has set up , funded and armed rebel fighters in foreign lands to fight the democratic government it has generally backfired at a later date... some guy named Bed Linen comes to mind.

What exactly is the long term affect of Noriega-like activities where the CI A sets up supply chains of drugs into the US to be sold to the poor . what is the ratio of short term profit compared to long term costs on health care , unemployment , crime rate and costs of incarceration ?

America needs a big military to deal with the enemies created by their global "activities"

isnt it an interesting world

hope the library staff where i am writing this from dont get harrassed , its only a public computer yo all and i am a retiree not a terrorist

Hero;

Thanks for your reply. Quoting - "This is where space based technologies provide a critical edge. It provides a way to know where your enemy is, what they are doing, as well as the same for your forces so that you can coordinate your efforts."

My reply is as follows:

I am an expert at nothing; but I have a rudimentary understanding of the issues involved; including orbital mechanics.

My concern focuses on two points - our ability to sustain our economic systems under such heavy spending loads and the survivability of space based assets with its relationship to our ability to prevail in the logistically difficult battle space of the coming conflict.

If the US decides to engage Iran, or is dragged into the conflict by Israel, we will be facing the combined economic and military forces of the S.C.O. This includes highly advanced SAM systems for which we have no experience in countering.

Given the capabilities of our adversaries, I am somewhat certain that those SAM systems will incorporate both self-contained RF and IR seekers. When combined with new tactics these systems will be extremely difficult to locate and even more difficult to attack.

We will lose not some, but all, of our space based assets - both military and commercial - within the first few days of the conflict and will not be able to replace them because of the orbital debris fields. If our order of battle is dependent upon space based assets then we will not prevail in the battle space.

I ask that you review the early hours and days of the Yom Kipper War as it relates to Egypt's ability to marginalize Israeli Air Assets until the US was able to supply the countermeasures to suppress Egyptian SAM systems. Without recent experience countering those anti-air assets the outcome of that conflict would have been very different.

We have no experience in countering the anti-air assets that the S.C.O. has already peripherally located near their logistical lines of support into the battle space. I fear that we will not be able to conduct effective offensive air operations in the active battle space.

Given the geographic location of the coming conflict, our inability to economically support an extended high intensity conflict, and the changing order of battle of our adversaries; I see neither the F-22 or F-35 as being effective assets in such a conflict.

Your reference to the cost of social programs as our most detrimental liability is improperly focused. The combined assets of the Social Security and Medicare program exceed 2.9 Trillion dollars. In combination, those two programs hold, by far, the largest percentage of US debt than any other entity. This can be seen by reviewing the monthly debt report published by the US Treasury. Simply extending the payroll taxes from the current $106,800 to $150,000 would keep those programs liquid for generations to come.

Debt is indeed our greatest national security threat; but throwing the blame on social programs serves no rational purpose.

Gavilan

What SAMs does Iran posses that can intercept a satellite?

Hero;

Here is a Wiki link to the SCO. This is the military and economic organization that WILL challenge us if we attempt to further dominate Middle East energy supplies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

There is considerable information in the public domain regarding the Order of Battle for these nations.

If you are interested in Space Denial Attack then I suggest you familiarize yourself with the basic principles of orbital mechanics. Other than to say such an attack methodology does not require intercept; I have no further comments to make in this regard. It serves no purpose.

I am not a warrior; but I will not support activities that I would be unwilling for me or my children to undertake. It find that it tempers my aggression and presents a clearer perspective related to such matters. I believe that war, when pursued as an economic enterprise, is as great a threat to our national security as docility and pacifity when challenged.

War profiteering sickens me. Programming our youth to believe that human conflict is some kind of heroic and honorable enterprise doesn't square with the realities of the battle space where deceit, ambush, and ruthlessness are the pre-requisites to tactical success. For the folks watching the cool video game war on TV this reality is far different from the guy who sees another man fall as a result of his actions. For the guys who do our dirty work for us, it is a very different reality in deed.

I have said this numerous times. War is first and foremost an economic endeavor; it envelopes and defines all components of conflict. This defining variable is what makes the guerilla the most cost effective weapon on the planet and has throughout history, determined who writes the history books.

It is of men's nature to choose the path of familiarity when confronted with challenge; and there is necessary purpose for our choosing to support and train dogs of war for dominion. That purpose being the dissuasion of those who have trained theirs for the same purpose. In doing so we chance to believe that dominion is a potential reality; succumbing to the same delusion that has led our species to catastrophic war in the past and that is now leading us ever so further off the successful evolutionary path. It appears that the path of our current familiarity now leads to the precipice of extinction, and in our preparation for our journey we have acquired marvels of destruction that so enthrall us that we focus entirely on what is in our hands; and fail to see what is in our path.

For the Generals and Profiteers, if given free reign, military adventure will be the chosen path; and global conflict the result. For the Generals; if we fail to keep the reign, they will lead us to the precipice. If we fail to train and support them, we become victims of predation. It is the dichotomy of defense; a zero sum game where the necessity of their use is triggered by failure in policy, complacency, or naiveté. Conditions eclipsed in danger only by the misguided ambition of the Profiteers.

The bottom line is this - The industrialized nations, through the transfer of nuclear and military technology, have become the enablers of their own destruction. We now must choose; to act a one civilization, or perish as roving bands of profiteers.

Gavilan

Beautiful words there Gavilan . can you run for president please ? :)

" We now must choose; to act as one civilization, or perish as roving bands of profiteers."

or we must find a way to obtain democracy in a land where laws are passed by the roving band to give them more power ,control , impunity and wealth , irrespective of any views that voters might express.

What percentage of the populace are living in ignorance of the true nature of foreign military activities , or choose to ignore it as being the deserved plight of evil nameless faceless "others"

elitism is a weakness of mind as obesity is a sickness of body

respect for the value of human life should have precedence in a society that instead furnishes future generations with mind training tools that create a sense of happiness and joy around wanton meaningless death and destruction.

Why do we pretend that we nurture our children yet engage in conduct that has resulted for eternity in karmic backlash upon the generations that follow us ?

Beautiful words, indeed, Gavilan. However, I disagree with some of your analysis and we are getting off-track.

I really don't want to continue to drag this thread into the ethics of war and which geopolitical policies are right or wrong. I find the constant drumming and blaming of corporations for all the evils in our world naive, but that is easy for most people to grasp because geopolitics is a complex subject. The stark truth is that there is really is not a righteous path that anyone or any country can pursue in foreign policy. We are always left with choosing the lessor of two evils.

Even if we are able to recognize it's ugly side, there is no getting around human nature. Regardless of how hard we try, that side will always surface. Better to be prepared for it, than to perish when it surfaces in our foes.

From the dawn of human history, the side with the bigger/better weapons makes the rules. Better to have those in the hands of people that use them to prevent wars, rather than those that start them.

Kramarat:

I am in complete agreement with your assessment.

The question remains whether the capabilities of these weapon systems are effective in the future battle space and whether their cost actually weakens us strategically.

In the past the F-22 was so unreliable it would not even be able to complete the trip to the battle to say nothing of sustaining continual engagement.

My assessment is that these systems weaken us; not strengthen us. That their cost prevents us from procuring more cost efficient systems in numbers that would make them effective in sustained high level engagement.

Further; that the procurement process is dominated by monopolistic enterprise that presents weapons systems based on profitability instead of effectiveness and reliability.

And that it absolutely imperative that I be wrong.

Gavilan

I've always had a problem understanding the supposed competitive bid process on military projects, followed by seemingly unlimited cost overruns.............not just the military either, many non-defense government projects as well.

I think a certain degree is understandable, since many systems have never been tried before. But the sheer amount of dollars going out has become ridiculous. On a personal level, I believe that the debt that we (US) have accrued, is a far greater national security threat, (at the moment), than not having bigger and better weapons than we already have......................it's a bit of a conundrum though, because we don't want to allow the big defense contractors to go out of business either. There needs to be some kind of middle ground. In my mind, getting our debt paid off should be priority #1. We can keep the defense contractors going with the interest that we won't be paying.....................and have money left over.

Interesting assessment. How would you answer these questions?

Do you feel that the 5th generation fighters that Russia, China, Japan, Turkey, Pakistan, and India have developed and/or under development will also weaken them?

Since the F-22 and F-35 are the only 5th generation fighters we (US) have, would eliminating them really place us in a better strategic position with the rest of the world?

Hero;

In 20 years the manned air superiority fighter is going to be like an elephant in a figure skating contest.

Also; in the end; if your economy has shot craps and your nation has entered the crap hole of anarchy it really isn't going to matter much, is it? It wasn't "entitlement programs" that buried us. It was weapons programs.

The only successful approach appears to be to rewrite the equation of energy source and supply.

In 20 years, if the US dollar was the most stable and valuable currency on the planet would those controlling energy supplies refuse to sell it to us? I think not.

So tell me how the F-22, that is so unreliable it can't even be flown with confidence to the battle space, to say nothing of sustained operations, be useful in countering the emerging air threats? The cost is so outrageous it would be possible to build numerous F-16s, train the pilots, and keep them current for the cost of one F-22.

You are defending programs that are indefensible in terms of cost, reliability, and applicability. They are a gold plated jobs program for the industry, not a weapons system.

They weaken us when those resources could be better used in economic infrastructure investment.

To you macro-economics might be a course you took in college; to me it is an aligned nation world conflict where the winners will eat steak and live in cool digs and the loser will eat weenies and live in mud huts. I've lived in bunkers and ate beens and weenies. I assure you - it sucks.

Gavilan

You wrote, "It wasn't "entitlement programs" that buried us. It was weapons programs."

Actually, if you were to follow the Constitution, which states the government should provide for the common defense, but it never stated the government was responsible for healthcare, welfare, social security and other handouts, you would see that the defense spending is less than the entitlement spending by a significant amount. Just social security alone is more than defense spending.

Have a look here for yourself.

I guess one way to look at it is to say that defense spending put us over the edge, but defense is mandated by the Constitution (as I pointed out before), social security, welfare, and other "entitlements" are not.

You wrote, "So tell me how the F-22, that is so unreliable it can't even be flown with confidence to the battle space, to say nothing of sustained operations, be useful in countering the emerging air threats?"

I think your position is just wrong. The F-22, with all its flaws, is the only operational 5th generation fighter in the world. However, that will not be the case for long. The various countries I listed before will all have their growing pains with their aircraft, too. Yet, we will still be ahead of the curve because we will have worked out most (if not all) of the bugs before the rest of the world. That keeps us in the leadership role and provides a deterrent instead of appeasement.

Your point about diverting spending away from defense into infrastructure is also naive. Yes, we can give up on defense and give up on our position of power in the world. If we do that we will lose even more of our economic foothold in the world and become a poorer nation GDP wise. The surrender process you advocate is a complex one, but cutting defense will make us more vulnerable in the world, force us to abandon our allies like South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, Europe, East Europe, Saudi Arabia, and the list goes on. We probably will not have to totally abandon those nations, but once we resign to cut back on our commitments there our adversaries will quickly muscle their way in and further cripple our economy. It's not as simple as macroeconomics. There is also geopolitics and geopolitics is at least (if not more) complex than economics.

As you said, "I've lived in bunkers and ate beens and weenies." With your vision of defense spending you (and the rest of us) will likely be eating those morsels again.

do you think excessive patriotism comes about through insecurity in an individual ?

seems to result in them blindly following the herd in case they are left all alone without a dummy to suck on or a mummy to pick them up

its not as bad in US as it is in North Kore@ though , look at the poor wretches over there standing up in public and forcing themselves to weep on TV for their late beloved jong ill while probably thinking thank god the nutter is dead . yet they live in such fear of being ostracised ( or shot ) that they replicate the expected mythical sterotype

i once shot 11 hole-in-ones in one day too ! ( before breakfast )

Hero;

You stated - "The surrender process you advocate is a complex one, but cutting defense will make us more vulnerable in the world, force us to abandon our allies like South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, Europe, East Europe, Saudi Arabia, and the list goes on. We probably will not have to totally abandon those nations, but once we resign to cut back on our commitments there our adversaries will quickly muscle their way in and further cripple our economy. It's not as simple as macroeconomics. There is also geopolitics and geopolitics is at least (if not more) complex than economics."

My reply:

Requiring the defense contractors to provide cost effective and reliable weapons systems is not "surrender." It's effective defense.

Allowing them to rob the American People is not effective defense. It's suicide.

Again - we spend more on defense that all other nations combined. If those responsible for our defense are no more efficient than that then we cannot possibly prevail in an increasingly competitive geopolitical environment.

Your reference to social programs as being handouts shows that either you don't understand the funding process or are being intellectually dishonest in your attempt to defend your indefensible position.

Over the years those trust funds have been tapped to the tune of 2.9 Trillion dollars, in large part to finance the cash payments to the contractors.

Social Security is funded on the first $106,800 of EARNED income; that is, by those who draw a paycheck. It represents about 1/3 of total government revenue and is self- funded; in most part by the working poor and middle class. There is no SS paid on Interest Income, Capital Gains, or any other income that doesn't involve a paycheck.

Is it possible that you are simply repeating what you hear in the media instead of doing your own research?

Here is what you are going to find in regards to taxes and health care costs -

The highest tax rates, by far, when including social security are paid by the self- employed making between about 86,000 and 106,800 dollars a year.

The median household income in the US is about $50,233.00. The tax rate for this person is 25% for Federal Income and about 15% Social Security making the total earned income tax load about 40%; considerably higher than any one making more than $106,800. For a self-employed small business owner earning the median income a common family health care plan would represent about 28 percent of total income. Add the cost of a common health insurance policy and this person pays about 68 percent of total income in Federal, Social Security, and Health Insurance alone. How does that compare to Western Europe? That's 68 percent of income that is taken out of the domestic market on the front end. Do you comprehend what that means in terms of demand on goods and services in the domestic economy my friend?

The highest income rate in the US is 35 %. To minimize tax burden the best income is long term capital gains taxed at 15%. (AND -No SS tax on that.)

The next best is interest and other unearned income which also avoids both tiers of the Social Security tax.

The highest earned income tax bracket when including Social Security is the self-employed single person making between $82,251 and $106,800 dollars which brings the total tax burden to about 43 percent - nearly 3 times the capital gains rate.

If matching contributions paid by employers and the self-employed were eliminated, and the tier one and two taxes were applied to all US income, it would generate more than 20 Billion dollars additional Social Security revenue while generating free capital for the self-employed and those employers who employ workers who make less than $106,800 equal to about 1/2 of current Social Security revenue. Perhaps this free capital could be used for re-investment or used to offset the cost of health insurance.

That is an example of how much income escapes Social Security Taxes.

The numbers are what they are. "Arithmetic is not opinion."

The "handouts" that support the disabled and elderly that you refer to are paid for, in advance, by the sweat, blood, and tears of the working poor and middle class; and given the tax structure those working poor and middle class also pay, by far, the greatest percentage of defense spending even though they control the smallest percentage of income.

At some point you, like most of us, will come to realise AH is really good at a lot of things, but when it comes to geopolitics he is pure 1950's and there is nothing anyone can say to change that.

I really think there is no one here that would argue that we should do a better job with defense spending. That is not in contention here.

Second, you reiterated the "we spend more on defense that all other nations combined." Yes, but that is because we are responsible not only for own defense, but also make a large contribution to the rest of the free world.

So there is the reason. If you have an issue with that amount, then please address the cause in your claim.

Third, you launched into a long diatribe about entitlement spending and such. I appreciate your work, but you can simply look at the pie chart and the percentage of defense spending versus all the other social programs. Now, my argument is that defense is something that the Constitution states is the government's responsibility. All the social programs are not mandated by the Constitution. Those programs were added brick by brick by politicians as a means to acquire power. They are nice, but expensive. My claim was/is that it is those programs that are the primary cause of bankrupting us and defense spending is a secondary cause. If you want to argue that, then you need to present a case for it.

Lastly, I have no clue where you are getting the idea that it is the poor and the middle class that are carrying all the water when it comes to taxes. Most of the poor pay little or no income taxes to begin with. It is true that social security taxes are paid by the working people, but that was how it was designed and the design is flawed, which is why that program is also broke and in the red.

The bulk of revenue collected by the government is paid by the high income earners, the top 1% pay about 40% of the tax burden. That is understandable (they make the money) and it is those dollars that pay for defense spending as well as a host of other social programs. I really don't want to get into what is fair for the rich to pay or wealth redistribution. That is outside the scope of the original argument.

However, the reasons we are in the red when it comes to government spending is because we spend more money than we take in. The reason we are spending more money is partly due to an increase in defense spending and more so due to the expansion of social programs over the years. However, all of this is just a red herring and we should just move on.

Now, let's return to the original argument of whether the F-22 and F-35 are bad expenditures. For the sake of clarity, the F-22 and F-35 are called 5th generation fighters.

I listed all the other countries that are building 5th generation fighters. I asked if you felt we should not build a 5th generation fighter. You never answered that question nor did you answer the question of why would other nations feel the need to invest in that technology.

So, I am interested in your position on those questions. Let's leave the poor and the middle class out of that discussion.

"The bulk of revenue collected by the government is paid by the high income earners, the top 1% pay about 40% of the tax burden."

Very well Hero; it is obvious you are unwilling to do your own research and continue to buy into the numbers presented to you. In terms of percentage of income that top 1% pays a fraction of what the working poor and middle class pay when considering just SS and Fed Income Taxes alone; even before considering all other taxes.

Further; you insist on separating the economic health of our nation, and the welfare of our people, from our national security interests. They are one in the same

My answer to your question - should we build a 5th generation fighter. That question is a moot point; its a done deal. The most profitable portion of these programs is development where billions can be earned with very low investment cost. The ROI of production is a small fraction of the development since it is wholly funded by the taxpayer.

The costs of the systems present a greater threat to our economic health, wellbeing of our people, and therefore our national security than the external threats they are designed to protect against.

The physiological limitations of the human pilot and the mass fraction dedicated to the support of that pilot limit payload, range and every other metric of performance.

So I guess my answer to the F-22 and F-35 is that they are already obsolete, incapable of sustained combat operations in the most likely battle space , and too dependent upon a secured space and electronic environment.

Given the current, not future, capabilities of the modern air defenses these systems are not survivable in an environment when space based intelligence, positioning, targeting, and communications capabilities don't exist; even if they were reliable enough to get to the battle space.

Our adversaries are building their systems at some small fraction of what it costs us to build a comparable system. In this world that means we eventually lose; suffering the same fate as the former Soviet Union. In the long term, cost effectiveness is the most important variable.

The coming conflict is going to be a high technology slug fest in the beginning and evolving into a low tech high intensity conflict where the external force multiplication factors these systems depend upon will simply no longer exist.

As a nation we have adopted an economically unsustainable economic model. The past, present, and planned weapons system are both a symptom and cause.

Again; our national security interests would be far better served by re-writing the energy source and supply equation than by maintaining the status quo.

My question to you is; will we as a nation survive the cost of the current and proposed weapon systems?

You wrote, "Our adversaries are building their systems at some small fraction of what it costs us to build a comparable system."

What intel do you have that verifies that claim?

I have heard a guess that the Chinese J-20 is about 110 million per aircraft (after development costs, which is in the neighborhood of the F-35, but how can anyone be sure since Russia and China do not publish their expenditures. The exception is the PAK FA T-50, which is being sold to India at about 50% the cost of the J-20.

You wrote, "As a nation we have adopted an economically unsustainable economic model. The past, present, and planned weapons system are both a symptom and cause."

I am clearly in agreement with the first sentence. I also agree that we can do better with our defense spending. However, I contend the real spiraling costs for us are our entitlement and social programs. We need to simply stop promising things we can't afford to provide. Unfortunately, it is not about actual solutions, but politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

"The United States intends to buy a total of 2,443 aircraft for an estimated US$323 billion, making it the most expensive defense program ever.^[12] The United States Air Force (USAF) budget data in 2010, along with other sources, projects the F-35 to have a flyaway cost from US$89 million to US$200 million over the planned production of F-35s.^[13][14][15] Cost estimates have risen to $382 billion for 2,443 aircraft, at an average of $156 million each. The rising program cost estimates have cast doubt on the actual number to be produced for the U.S. In January 2011, the F-35B variant was placed on "probation" for two years because of development problems. In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.15 million if its share of RDT&E spending is included."

^{http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/07/business/la-fi-fighter-jets-grounded-20110807}

"At an estimated cost of $412 million each, the F-22s amount to about $65 billion sitting on the tarmac. The grounding is the latest dark chapter for an aircraft plagued by problems, and whose need was called into question even before its first test flight."

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/131300/how-much-has-the-f_22-really-cost%3F.html

"By that reckoning, each of the last 60 F-22s set the taxpayer back $137 million, only slightly more than the roughly $110 million apiece Americans pay for a new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - a plane specifically designed to be "affordable," whatever that means. (All figures are in roughly constant dollars.)

Haters cite "unit cost," which includes development and production spending divided by the number of jets built. F-22 production and development, including currently approved upgrades, totals $74 billion, resulting in a unit cost of $377 million.

And just because the last Raptor left the Marietta factory doesn't mean the unit cost is fixed at $377 million. If the Air Force ever gets around to adding a long-planned-for datalink, the unit cost could increase slightly. Tweaks to prevent future groundings - like those that occurred this year - would also push the unit cost up.

By contrast, the F-35′s unit cost should stabilize at around $157 million, owing to a massive 2,443-plane production run. That's assuming the Joint Strike Fighter doesn't get canceled or curtailed following revelations of new design flaws.

There's a third way to calculate the F-22′s burden on the taxpayer. "Lifecycle cost" adds up the price of fuel, spare parts and maintenance during the jet's projected 40-year lifespan. The Government Accountability Office estimates it will cost $59 billion to fix and fly the F-22s until they retire. If you add unit cost and per-plane lifecycle cost, you get the total amount the United States spends to design, produce and operate a single Raptor: a wh