Balta, given our clear intelligence failures the last 10-15 years, how do you know this is true? How can we know for sure we not only have the best, but a generation lead, in cutting edge technology?

 

Also, IMO the same reasoning behind your view on civil scientific research spending (every dollar spent on science is a benefit) should be applied to spending on defense technology and research.

The problem with this comparison is the price. The entire NSF budget over the last decade currently is comparable within a factor of about 1.5 to the entire F-22 program.

 

Because of that cost comparison...we're spending more on our defense department than the entire rest of the world spends on their militaries. If some potential adversary is producing an equivalent weapon at 1/100th the cost, then we've already failed, because the cost of these guys is 100% the key flaw; you can't ever afford to lose one.

Aside from keeping you employed, what exactly is the F-22 useful for? It's an expensive air superiority fighter that has zero role right now in maintaining air superiority because even the best the rest of the world has can't challenge the last generation of U.S. fighters. On top of that, it's so expensive that at a shootdown rate of 15:1 enemy:us, the fighter still remains impractical; you need about 30:1 or 40:1 for the costs to even come out close to equal.

 

 

There's one thing that I agree with... and that is that it costs too much. How do you determine the economies of scale on this? I wish I had an answer because technologically speaking, there's nothing in the world that can touch this plane. There just isn't. So, I understand them cutting it, I just think technologically, it's a mistake. I do think there's a use for it, which I won't get into in this post... but it's something that from a black and white cost standpoint, yea, I get the cut.

 

The F-35 can't touch this plane, but they can mass produce it much cheaper, so it lives on, so to speak. The cost overruns on this are not quite what they advertise, I can tell you that much... but it's definitely inferior to the F-22 in terms of capability. It's weird, actually, because the navy hates the F-35 CV version. Common sense will tell you why. Any guesses?

Well thank god we don't need those F-22s anymore.

 

 

Our secrets are helping fuel the Chinese military machine.

This is kinda common knowledge within the government and national security buffs. Really if I went into further detail it's kinda depressing.

So who exactly is going to leave a production line sit at all of these different defense companies on the off chance that we need more after the program is mothballed? Otherwise, you are starting over again.

 

I feel like I already said this twice... No one leaves the lines sitting. You don't do that at all. You close the line and move onto the next thing.

 

You're half-way to the flaw in NSS's logic. If there's money available to build a line, then someone will keep it up and running. The problem is that building the lines, completing all the tests and designs, figuring out all the flaws, losing a couple test pilots, etc., is the expensive part; building the planes is the cheap part.

 

Of that $35 billion price, probably the first $25 billion was spent setting up the system and design. Once you get the design, producing the planes becomes the cheaper part. Running the line from here they estimate costs about $100 million or so a plane, while the first hundred on average came out at about $250 million a plane.

 

So what's the flaw then, exactly?

 

So what's the flaw then, exactly?

Paying for the expensive part while getting none of the benefits of the cheap part.

Paying for the expensive part while getting none of the benefits of the cheap part.

OK, you'll note that when I originally suggested this, that I specifically said that from a cost per plane perspective, my plan is not ideal. But you can't think of this in the exact same way you do a business that sells to customerS. This is going to one customer, and one only, who dictates the manufacturing process. So cost per unit is a lesser concern than it would otherwise be. The bigger concern is overall cash flow out, and results.

 

In my view, the results dictate that you want two things for the air force - right sized force for least overall spending possible, but still be able to maintain a technological edge. So for that purpose, its better for the Air Force to spend $25B on 100 planes than $35B on 200 planes, if your planes are so advanced that the ONLY real values in having them are edge maintenance and replacement of planes going out of service.

 

These must be some of those better educated public sector workers you guys always talk about.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt_r-jO3lKE

These must be some of those better educated public sector workers you guys always talk about.

Corollary: all car accidents are caused by public sector workers. Private sector workers never drive in the snow, and never wind up in accidents.

 

You've proven your point. I submit.

Corollary: all car accidents are caused by public sector workers. Private sector workers never drive in the snow, and never wind up in accidents.

 

You've proven your point. I submit.

 

I look forward you applying the same standards on individual actions posted in the Democratic thread.

Exactly how long does it take to "ramp up" an F-22 building program? Just watching how long it has taken to get 787 rolling off of an assembly room floor has been a horrifying site.

 

 

From design to prototype testing to actual production, about 10 years... but that's assuming a brand new aircraft. An extension of existing technology is a totally different thing.

 

And, we're going through a design change in the marine variant of the F-35... and it's a quick, quick, quick turnaround. When these guys get moving, they can go quick when they need to.

From design to prototype testing to actual production, about 10 years... but that's assuming a brand new aircraft. An extension of existing technology is a totally different thing.

 

And, we're going through a major design change in the marine variant of the F-35... and it's a quick, quick, quick turnaround. When these guys get moving, they can go quick when they need to.

I think your schedule is out of date there. 10 years might have been the old schedule, but I think it's closer to 20 now. The F-22 design phase started in the mid-80's, the selected frame design was chosen in 1991, and it took about 20 years before it reached genuine production from the proposal design stages, and almost 25 where there were enough of them to fill up a squadron.

I think your schedule is out of date there. 10 years might have been the old schedule, but I think it's closer to 20 now. The F-22 design phase started in the mid-80's, the selected frame design was chosen in 1991, and it took about 20 years before it reached genuine production from the proposal design stages, and almost 25 where there were enough of them to fill up a squadron.

 

 

Actually, 10 is probably too short. 15 is probably better. And I'm thinking of the F-35... the design of that started in the middle 90's and we're in low risk inital production stage 4 right now.

 

The F-22 is a lot different then most other programs because it could never get the scale going that the other major air frame types have.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spo...flipped-parties

 

The good folks at GOPAC provide a list of the 25 members of state legislatures who switched from the Democrat party to Republicans since Election Day:

 

2010 State Legislative Party Switchers

 

(as of December 30, 2010)

 

1. Representative Allan Boothe – Alabama House

 

2. Representative Steve Hurst – Alabama House

 

3. Representative Mike Millican –Alabama House

 

4. Representative Lesley Vance – Alabama House

 

5. Senator Tim Golden – Georgia Senate

 

6. Representative Ellis Black – Georgia House

 

7. Representative Amy Carter – Georgia House

 

8. Representative Mike Cheokas – Georgia House

 

9. Representative Bubber Epps – Georgia House

 

10. Representative Gerald Greene – Georgia House

 

11. Representative Bob Hanner – Georgia House

 

12. Representative Doug McKillip – Georgia House

 

13. Representative Alan Powell – Georgia House

 

14. Senator Chris Steineger – Kansas Senate

 

15. Senator John Alario – Louisiana Senate

 

16. Senator John Smith – Louisiana Senate

 

17. Representative Noble Ellington – Louisiana Senate

 

18. Representative Walker Hines – Louisiana House

 

19. Representative Fred Mills – Louisiana House

 

20. Representative Michael Willette – Maine House

 

21. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith – Mississippi Senate

 

22. Representative Bobby Shows – Mississippi House

 

23. Senator Eldon Nygarrd – South Dakota Senate

 

24. Representative Allan Ritter – Texas House

 

25. Representative Aaron Pena – Texas House

 

GOPAC Chairman Frank Donatelli: “We are pleased with the decision of these men and women to leave the Democratic Party and join with us. They are adding to the ranks of Americans who want to put result-oriented ideas into action to get us moving in the right direction. Each of these legislators’ insight, experience, and commitment to common-sense, conservative policies will make our Party stronger.”

 

I suspect quite a few Tea Party members will be wary of the new guys until they demonstrate consistent fiscally-conservative stands….

What, all but 3 of those were from the South?

Why do conservatives always say the "Democrat" party? That just sounds like someone saying the "Republic" party.

Why do conservatives always say the "Democrat" party?

 

because they know Democrats hate it. haha.

Edited January 2, 201115 yr by mr_genius

because they know Democrats hate it. haha.

Because polling data actually shows it has more of a negative connotation.

Because polling data actually shows it has more of a negative connotation.

 

The Democrat party has no one to blame but themselves for making 'Democrat' a bad word.

The Democrat party has no one to blame but themselves for making 'Democrat' a bad word.

I'm not sure how they could have convinced people to spell or pronounce it a certain way in the 1700's in anticipation of the fact that the sharp t sound at the end would become a means of adding a negative connotation to words in 225 years later.

Because polling data actually shows it has more of a negative connotation.

I think it's more because "Demorcratic" has a positive connotation; it is evoking thoughts of our system of democracy, whereas "democrat" evokes thoughts of the actual party.

I think it's more because "Demorcratic" has a positive connotation; it is evoking thoughts of our system of democracy, whereas "democrat" evokes thoughts of the actual party.

Actually, it's the sound that the word ends with. Say it to yourself, "Dem-o-Crat", you almost have to push it out hard, while you have to move your voice back up to add the extra soft "ic" at the end.

 

It's one of those classic, focus group response monitoring tricks.

Actually, it's the sound that the word ends with. Say it to yourself, "Dem-o-Crat", you almost have to push it out hard, while you have to move your voice back up to add the extra soft "ic" at the end.

BB, you never cease to amaze me

Actually, it's the sound that the word ends with. Say it to yourself, "Dem-o-Crat", you almost have to push it out hard, while you have to move your voice back up to add the extra soft "ic" at the end.

 

It's one of those classic, focus group response monitoring tricks.

 

Change the party name if it's that much of a 'handicap'. But I suppose I could still call them the Democrat party if I wanted. Kind of like when someone tries to give them self a new nickname, but everyone ignores it and just uses the old one.

Actually, it's the sound that the word ends with. Say it to yourself, "Dem-o-Crat", you almost have to push it out hard, while you have to move your voice back up to add the extra soft "ic" at the end.

 

It's one of those classic, focus group response monitoring tricks.

 

 

LMAO. Poor, poor DemoCRAT.

 

Jackass.

Actually, it's the sound that the word ends with. Say it to yourself, "Dem-o-Crat", you almost have to push it out hard, while you have to move your voice back up to add the extra soft "ic" at the end.

 

It's one of those classic, focus group response monitoring tricks.

 

Good lord, I don't know that I have ever read such a steaming pile of crap in this forum, and that is saying something. Good old mind tricks...