mistake in $42 million dollar aircraft, X 163

[SHERIFF]

Very interesting.... since these planes fly around populated areas so much now while participating in Homeland Security.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,159762,00.html

[Marauderjack]

Very comforting...huh??:confused:

The new F-18's here in Beaufort are $80MM EACH and they are built by the LOW BIDDER!!!:eek:

Now what is HS going to do??:rolleyes:

Marauderjack:burnout:

[Bluerauder]

Very comforting...huh??:confused:

The new F-18's here in Beaufort are $80MM EACH and they are built by the LOW BIDDER!!!:eek:
Now what is HS going to do??:rolleyes:

Marauderjack:burnout:
The sky is falling. The sky is falling. Chicken Little. :rolleyes:

Very few weapons systems are developed and built by the low bidder anymore. "Best Value" is more often preferred. This "Low Bidder" crap is a continuing myth about government procurement. Common services and supplies may still go to the low bidder; but not the high tech stuff.

The plane in question, the F-15C dates back to 1979. That's 28 years ago guys. In fact, the F-15 design dates back to the 1960's and the first production contract for F-15s was awarded in 1969. That's 38 years ago folks. Let's not overreact and criticize over an obscure incident and "possible" design flaw that took nearly 40 years to discover.

The US Army has 25 year old tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. The US Air Force has 50 year old B-52s still flying. Want newer and better stuff --- send your donation to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) --- they will appreciate the support.

[KillJoy]

Want newer and better stuff

....tell the Federal Government to stop spending BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars overseas.

:rolleyes:

KillJoy

[Bluerauder]

....tell the Federal Government to stop spending BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars overseas.

:rolleyes:

KillJoy
Oh yeah ... your way will be SO MUCH better. :rolleyes: No thanks. :P



WOW. If that is the case..... damn......

Barack Obama (http://www.barackobama.com/)
Score: 63

Joe Biden (http://www.joebiden.com/)
Score: 63

Hillary Clinton (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/)
Score: 56

KillJoy

[KillJoy]

Oh yeah ... your way will be SO MUCH better. :rolleyes: No thanks. :P


Hey, I never said I would vote for ANY of them. :eek:

I guess I am just a LOT more open minded than SOME.

:dunno:

KillJoy

[Paul T. Casey]

:eek:

I guess I am just a LOT more open minded than SOME.

:dunno:

KillJoy

Quick, close it up, it may all leak out. :rolleyes:

[KillJoy]

Quick, close it up, it may all leak out. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Too late

:(

KillJoy

[sailsmen]

Gov't spending on Defense from 1946-1996 averaged 35% of Federal spending.

Defense is currently less than 20%.

The total costs of the Iraq war since 2003 is 3%.

The average person has been completely brain washed by Al Queada Propaganda. Ask the above 3 as a question and you will be shocked how far off they are.

Better yet ask the average European under 40 what role the US played in WWII and they will likely say got in at the end to get the spoils of war and nuked Japan.

They will not believe we had 300K KIA. 15 million in uniform and produced 1/2 of all weapons used.

Keep in mind in 1933 there were 35 armies larger than ours.

[Breadfan]

I like it when the Fed's spend on defense, 'cause I like it when the Fed's provide National Security and protect me from the outside threats to this Nation, which is one of the key functions planned out by the founding fathers.

I also like it when they buy new plans and other stuff 'cause it often helps stimulate the economy.

Those F15's are getting a bit old, but still flying well with upgraded avionics. Still as great a plane as they are, it's getting about time to retire them in favor of some 21st century flight tech.

[duhtroll]

We've been through this several times. That "budgeted" amount doesn't include the amount we are now in debt because of the war.

That's like saying "yeah, I charged the new Viper to the credit card so that it doesn't really count in my expenses."

It also doesn't include any of those "emergency" appropriations bills Bush keeps getting.

"Budget" doesn't equal actual cost in this case.

[SHERIFF]

I forget the specifics right now, but wasn't there at one time a big stink because the taxpayers were paying $400+ for toilet seats in some of the government planes? :D

[sailsmen]

No where am I talking budgets. I am talking percents of actual amounts spent. It's what you spend that matters.

No matter wehter you express it as a percentage of GDP or of Federal spending Defense and the Iraq war are dramatically less than the 50 year post WWII average spent on Defense.

A budget is just that a budget. As in projected spending. Just like all the talk about the "Surplus" that never materialized because it was projected, never existed.

It must really get your goat when all that Al Queada Propaganda turns out to be just that Propaganda.

[Bluerauder]

I forget the specifics right now, but wasn't there at one time a big stink because the taxpayers were paying $400+ for toilet seats in some of the government planes? :D
Nah, that was $400 hammers and $600 toilet seats. That goes back some 25 years to NASA I think. Certainly no toilet seats in an F-15. ;)

[duhtroll]

My point is, your numbers on actual spending are incorrect.

The FY 2007 budget shows defense as 20% of all requests, which is where I am assuming you got that 20% figure.

However, budgets and spending are not the same thing.

If that's not where you got it, then post where you got it, or we are left to assume you simply made it up. Post a friggin' source. Otherwise all you have is propaganda . . .

The truth is we spend FAR more on defense that what you are stating.

This has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or their propaganda. Just because I point out the flaws in your numbers, it does not mean I am a terrorist sympathizer. I don't have a "goat" to get.

Post the budget and all discretionary spending (including emergency appropriations) and we'll see just how much has been spent, and how much more we are in debt requiring future spending -- money that's been spent before we even have it.

When discussing defense spending, you cannot push aside debts created by the war and say they don't count.






No where am I talking budgets. I am talking percents of actual amounts spent. It's what you spend that matters.

No matter wehter you express it as a percentage of GDP or of Federal spending Defense and the Iraq war are dramatically less than the 50 year post WWII average spent on Defense.

A budget is just that a budget. As in projected spending. Just like all the talk about the "Surplus" that never materialized because it was projected, never existed.

It must really get your goat when all that Al Queada Propaganda turns out to be just that Propaganda.

[Aren Jay]

Gov't spending on Defense from 1946-1996 averaged 35% of Federal spending.

Defense is currently less than 20%.

The total costs of the Iraq war since 2003 is 3%.

The average person has been completely brain washed by Al Queada Propaganda. Ask the above 3 as a question and you will be shocked how far off they are.

Better yet ask the average European under 40 what role the US played in WWII and they will likely say got in at the end to get the spoils of war and nuked Japan.

They will not believe we had 300K KIA. 15 million in uniform and produced 1/2 of all weapons used.

Keep in mind in 1933 there were 35 armies larger than ours.


The 35% spending is why you have an 18 trillion dollar debt. When Iraq is said and done it will add another 1-3 trillion to that. Meanwhile China is not in debt. They make money, ie people give them money, not the you make money and can't give it way.

[2,4shofast]

The money spent in Iraq isn't even close to the amount of money spent each year on supporting the military members and their families who are stationed in Europe for instance. The bombs that we use have already been paid for; most of them over 30 years ago. The money spent over here is kept to a minimum believe me; we have the bare and I mean bare necessities to get by, people many times forget that the reason we as Americans have so many "rights" is because of the sacrifices that out armed forces have made over the years through the world.

People always ask me when I think we will be done with Iraq and withdrawal the troops; honestly I don't think it will ever happen. In my opinion I think it will be just like Korea, over time as society starts to forget that troops are still over here it will no longer be a issue. I don't know how many people realize that there are still over 70 bases and posts in South Korea alone, still manned by US Service members. There have been billions of dollars spent every year to support this but why isn't it ever talked about? Because it wouldn't affect the upcoming election:confused: Who knows... I'm now off my box...sorry about that.:o