Costliest Jet, Years in Making, Sees the Enemy: Budget Cuts

Gerald · 11-29-12, 02:05 PM

But we also talk about quality.

Oberon · 11-29-12, 02:47 PM

We (the Lolwaffles) had a big old talk about the F-35 a while back. It's a damn fine piece of kit, top notch stuff...but the price makes its deployment viability restrictive. You would only send it into missions where you could guarantee that it wouldn't get shot at, which defeats the entire point of a war machine. In the end, you're probably better with the latest version of the F-18, but that would mean that we'd have to completely redesign our carriers, which would mean that we would probably wind up not being able to afford even a single one.

Come to think of it, didn't the Enterprise get decommed a while ago?

Gerald · 11-29-12, 02:50 PM

Yes,she is scheduled to be deactivated on 1 December 2012.

Oberon · 11-29-12, 03:06 PM

We could do worse than put forward an offer for her. Then we could snap up some F-18s at a fraction of the price of the F-35s and that would do us well for all that we need out of Andrews airforce for the time being.

EDIT: Not that I am complaining that we are building very modern and effective warships, nor am I complaining about the employment that the construction of these vessels makes. I look forward to seeing the QEII carriers, and I hope we are able to afford both of them. Unfortunately it's the continued rising costs of the procurement of weaponry for our armed forces that forces us to decide between having two very effective, modern carriers or six well armed and capable carriers. An example I keep coming back to is the example of the German Panzers vs the American Shermans, one Panzer commander once said "We could kill four or five of your Shermans for each one of our Panzers, unfortunately, you always brought six" Quantity sometimes has a Quality of its own. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but when one unit costs so much, and can be taken down by a unit which costs a LOT less, then financial logic dictates that the army with the more expensive equipment is going to run out first.

Takeda Shingen · 11-29-12, 03:17 PM

Ugh. The JSF program has been a perfect example of what is wrong with modern defense contracting. After all is said and done we end up with a plane that is marginally more effective than it's predecessors and yet so expensive that, as Oberon alluded to, we can't afford to actually risk them in combat.

Stealhead · 11-29-12, 03:18 PM

Lockheed Martin trying to please its share holders. What was it that President Eisenhower warned about in that speech that one time.....

Oh right the military industrial complex!

Defense is one thing a nation needs it but what we have is just too much and it costs too much money.You should have the most effective fighting force not the most costly.If anything having the most costly is a hindrance.The problem is there is so much money to be made and it is not hard to get a pet project going.

11-29-12, 02:05 PM	#1
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	But we also talk about quality. __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

11-29-12, 02:50 PM	#3
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	Yes,she is scheduled to be deactivated on 1 December 2012. __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-29-12, 02:47 PM	#2
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	We (the Lolwaffles) had a big old talk about the F-35 a while back. It's a damn fine piece of kit, top notch stuff...but the price makes its deployment viability restrictive. You would only send it into missions where you could guarantee that it wouldn't get shot at, which defeats the entire point of a war machine. In the end, you're probably better with the latest version of the F-18, but that would mean that we'd have to completely redesign our carriers, which would mean that we would probably wind up not being able to afford even a single one. Come to think of it, didn't the Enterprise get decommed a while ago?

11-29-12, 03:06 PM	#4
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	We could do worse than put forward an offer for her. Then we could snap up some F-18s at a fraction of the price of the F-35s and that would do us well for all that we need out of Andrews airforce for the time being. EDIT: Not that I am complaining that we are building very modern and effective warships, nor am I complaining about the employment that the construction of these vessels makes. I look forward to seeing the QEII carriers, and I hope we are able to afford both of them. Unfortunately it's the continued rising costs of the procurement of weaponry for our armed forces that forces us to decide between having two very effective, modern carriers or six well armed and capable carriers. An example I keep coming back to is the example of the German Panzers vs the American Shermans, one Panzer commander once said "We could kill four or five of your Shermans for each one of our Panzers, unfortunately, you always brought six" Quantity sometimes has a Quality of its own. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but when one unit costs so much, and can be taken down by a unit which costs a LOT less, then financial logic dictates that the army with the more expensive equipment is going to run out first.

11-29-12, 03:17 PM	#5
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	Ugh. The JSF program has been a perfect example of what is wrong with modern defense contracting. After all is said and done we end up with a plane that is marginally more effective than it's predecessors and yet so expensive that, as Oberon alluded to, we can't afford to actually risk them in combat.

11-29-12, 03:18 PM	#6
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Lockheed Martin trying to please its share holders. What was it that President Eisenhower warned about in that speech that one time..... Oh right the military industrial complex! Defense is one thing a nation needs it but what we have is just too much and it costs too much money.You should have the most effective fighting force not the most costly.If anything having the most costly is a hindrance.The problem is there is so much money to be made and it is not hard to get a pet project going.