Name one Chinese product that isn't shit.RAIMIUS wrote:
China is not building "utter shit" products. Sure, they make TONS of simple products, but that does not exclude them from higher technology production.
Are we considering all products manufactured in China, regardless of design origins, or indigenous Chinese products?Bertster7 wrote:
Name one Chinese product that isn't shit.RAIMIUS wrote:
China is not building "utter shit" products. Sure, they make TONS of simple products, but that does not exclude them from higher technology production.
And you get this surety of the future from where?Kmarion wrote:
You can try to dress it up anyway you want but sorry bud.. that's it. China knows you don't take on the big dog directly.. you poison his food. It's economic warfare and it's one we lose when Washington sells reality out in favor of never gonna happen conflicts. AKA the military industrial complex.Kmarion wrote:
A war with China will be asymmetrical. Or the end of us all.
The problem is you are saying we should only be prepared for one possibility. That fails.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Common sense never fails. Nuclear powers won't be dog fighting each other over the Siberian tundra.. ever.FEOS wrote:
And you get this surety of the future from where?Kmarion wrote:
You can try to dress it up anyway you want but sorry bud.. that's it. China knows you don't take on the big dog directly.. you poison his food. It's economic warfare and it's one we lose when Washington sells reality out in favor of never gonna happen conflicts. AKA the military industrial complex.Kmarion wrote:
A war with China will be asymmetrical. Or the end of us all.
The problem is you are saying we should only be prepared for one possibility. That fails.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So I guess we should stop developing new stuff, since no one else is anywhere near our stuff, and no one is ever going to try and mess with us.
/sarcasm
I'm with FEOS. I'd rather win by sheer overkill.
/sarcasm
I'm with FEOS. I'd rather win by sheer overkill.
I like pretty shiny stuff also. But not if it cost us less of the more practical things we currently use. F-22's aren't overkill. Just overspending. Like the man says.. it's like middle aged men buying Ferrari's when the family really needs a mini-van.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
I'm with FEOS. I'd rather win by sheer overkill.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
While nothing will replace the A-10, The F-35 can hold it's own.
Think about it, the first production model of the A-10A was delivered in 1975. The Air Force plans to keep it until 2028. That's 53 years of service. Imagine if we had used Sopwith Camels in Vietnam.
The First F-16A flew in 1976. The first F-15A flew in 1972. The first F/A-18 in 1978. OUR PLANES ARE OLD.
Think about it, the first production model of the A-10A was delivered in 1975. The Air Force plans to keep it until 2028. That's 53 years of service. Imagine if we had used Sopwith Camels in Vietnam.
The First F-16A flew in 1976. The first F-15A flew in 1972. The first F/A-18 in 1978. OUR PLANES ARE OLD.
Dude , good article! Reading that makes the F35 look like a seriously good bit of kit.Major League wrote:
While nothing will replace the A-10, The F-35 can hold it's own.
Think about it, the first production model of the A-10A was delivered in 1975. The Air Force plans to keep it until 2028. That's 53 years of service. Imagine if we had used Sopwith Camels in Vietnam.
The First F-16A flew in 1976. The first F-15A flew in 1972. The first F/A-18 in 1978. OUR PLANES ARE OLD.
Intersting to note that the F111 was first used by our Airforce in 1973 and is still in service now ( although should be replaced soon). We see them flying around quite often. Only thing that can take them out is wildlife
Products designed and built in China. That's the whole point, that China don't make any profitable products of their own.nukchebi0 wrote:
Are we considering all products manufactured in China, regardless of design origins, or indigenous Chinese products?Bertster7 wrote:
Name one Chinese product that isn't shit.RAIMIUS wrote:
China is not building "utter shit" products. Sure, they make TONS of simple products, but that does not exclude them from higher technology production.
I agree with the people who say its a waste of money. It is. This fighter is far beyond the cababilities of every other aircraft. The F-16 is cheap, upgradable, manuverable, fast, and a great air to ground fighter. The f- 15 is a great air interceptor also. The A-10 cheap and durable, easy to fly. I say we use our money on better ground capabilities. Like body armor(dragonskin ftw), weapons, and intelegence capabilities.
Which is exactly why it's needed. All those others that you mentioned? They aren't. No matter how many you build, they'll still be inferior to 4.5 and 5th gen fighters.NAthANSmitt wrote:
This fighter is far beyond the cababilities of every other aircraft.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
As I said before, we like overkill! Fighting fair is not a good plan...and fighting at a disadvantage is usually stupid. There are aircraft out there, available for sale to anyone with money, that were specifically designed to beat our best fighters (F-22 excluded). When the USAF has the undisputed upper hand, we don't lose as many pilots. We figured that out during Vietnam, and we didn't like the number of people we lost.
We can either have the best, or we can be cheap and risk people's lives (and our national security). So the question becomes how much do you value the lives of your servicemen and women, and what is the price for national security you are willing to pay?
We can either have the best, or we can be cheap and risk people's lives (and our national security). So the question becomes how much do you value the lives of your servicemen and women, and what is the price for national security you are willing to pay?
If you don't think this is overkill there is no fucking hope for you. Global supremacy is not fought only in the skies. It is extremly short sighted to ignore the cost of continuously writing blank checks. I wished I was so naive as to think of only one side of the argument... yea, who doesn't want better aircraft (no matter how irresponsible they are financially)? "Currently, China holds over $1 trillion in dollar denominated assets (of which $330 billion are U.S. Treasury notes). In comparison, $1.4 trillion represents M1 or the "tight money supply" of U.S. Dollars which suggests that the value of the U.S. Dollar could change dramatically should China ever choose to divest itself of a large portion of those reserves". Thats the battlefield fellas.. wake up.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Lmao Dragonskin... Go back to futureweapons.NAthANSmitt wrote:
I agree with the people who say its a waste of money. It is. This fighter is far beyond the cababilities of every other aircraft. The F-16 is cheap, upgradable, manuverable, fast, and a great air to ground fighter. The f- 15 is a great air interceptor also. The A-10 cheap and durable, easy to fly. I say we use our money on better ground capabilities. Like body armor(dragonskin ftw), weapons, and intelegence capabilities.
Kmarion, what if we continued to build them, but at a slower pace so as to reduce costs?
Maybe if we forced other countries to defend themselves (Japan, South Korea), rather than having them rely on us, we could cut down on costs considerably.
It's too late for that. The real costs are in development. You might as well make lots.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
Lmao Dragonskin... Go back to futureweapons.NAthANSmitt wrote:
I agree with the people who say its a waste of money. It is. This fighter is far beyond the cababilities of every other aircraft. The F-16 is cheap, upgradable, manuverable, fast, and a great air to ground fighter. The f- 15 is a great air interceptor also. The A-10 cheap and durable, easy to fly. I say we use our money on better ground capabilities. Like body armor(dragonskin ftw), weapons, and intelegence capabilities.
Kmarion, what if we continued to build them, but at a slower pace so as to reduce costs?
The really, really stupid thing is the US not trying to sell them to close allies - which would be a way of recouping some of the development costs.
Now that I agree with. But I wouldn't count foreign sales out yet...just wouldn't be on the scale of the F-15, though.Bertster7 wrote:
The really, really stupid thing is the US not trying to sell them to close allies - which would be a way of recouping some of the development costs.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Except that would increase the price per plane, we would be getting less for our money. What it is is we over research and over develop these things. The procurement process was a good idea once, but now it is a huge bureaucratic mess that ends up costing the tax payer much more and sending our men and women into the field with out the equipment they should but dont have.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
Lmao Dragonskin... Go back to futureweapons.NAthANSmitt wrote:
I agree with the people who say its a waste of money. It is. This fighter is far beyond the cababilities of every other aircraft. The F-16 is cheap, upgradable, manuverable, fast, and a great air to ground fighter. The f- 15 is a great air interceptor also. The A-10 cheap and durable, easy to fly. I say we use our money on better ground capabilities. Like body armor(dragonskin ftw), weapons, and intelegence capabilities.
Kmarion, what if we continued to build them, but at a slower pace so as to reduce costs?
Hell, half the time they are getting overpriced equipment that should of been in service 10 years prior if the process worked right. and you cant blame it on the contractor.
I am not only talking about the F22 and F35 here.
Last edited by Commie Killer (2008-05-04 08:15:06)
Actually, reducing production rates is not nearly as expensive as setting a production cap. Line shutdown is far more expensive.Commie Killer wrote:
Except that would increase the price per plane, we would be getting less for our money. What it is is we over research and over develop these things. The procurement process was a good idea once, but now it is a huge bureaucratic mess that ends up costing the tax payer much more and sending our men and women into the field with out the equipment they should but dont have.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
Lmao Dragonskin... Go back to futureweapons.NAthANSmitt wrote:
I agree with the people who say its a waste of money. It is. This fighter is far beyond the cababilities of every other aircraft. The F-16 is cheap, upgradable, manuverable, fast, and a great air to ground fighter. The f- 15 is a great air interceptor also. The A-10 cheap and durable, easy to fly. I say we use our money on better ground capabilities. Like body armor(dragonskin ftw), weapons, and intelegence capabilities.
Kmarion, what if we continued to build them, but at a slower pace so as to reduce costs?
Hell, half the time they are getting overpriced equipment that should of been in service 10 years prior if the process worked right. and you cant blame it on the contractor.
I am not only talking about the F22 and F35 here.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
But in the end wouldnt their still be a cap? Sorry if Im wrong on this stuff, I was getting my info about the F22 from AirForce Magazine...biased source I guess lol.FEOS wrote:
Actually, reducing production rates is not nearly as expensive as setting a production cap. Line shutdown is far more expensive.Commie Killer wrote:
Except that would increase the price per plane, we would be getting less for our money. What it is is we over research and over develop these things. The procurement process was a good idea once, but now it is a huge bureaucratic mess that ends up costing the tax payer much more and sending our men and women into the field with out the equipment they should but dont have.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
Lmao Dragonskin... Go back to futureweapons.
Kmarion, what if we continued to build them, but at a slower pace so as to reduce costs?
Hell, half the time they are getting overpriced equipment that should of been in service 10 years prior if the process worked right. and you cant blame it on the contractor.
I am not only talking about the F22 and F35 here.
Eventually, but I guess they are tied together. Reducing production rates keeps the line open longer, which reduces overall costs (dollar cost averaging ftw).Commie Killer wrote:
But in the end wouldnt their still be a cap? Sorry if Im wrong on this stuff, I was getting my info about the F22 from AirForce Magazine...biased source I guess lol.FEOS wrote:
Actually, reducing production rates is not nearly as expensive as setting a production cap. Line shutdown is far more expensive.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
R&D is what inflates the prices so much. If congress decides to let the AF buy as many as we want, it actually would not cost that much more. (It was the same way with the B-2)
We already have a huge sunk cost in the Raptor. The production price per airframe is not as significant.
We already have a huge sunk cost in the Raptor. The production price per airframe is not as significant.
Is the B-2 Production line still open?
Nope.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
Is the B-2 Production line still open?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
They capped it at 21 aircraft.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
Is the B-2 Production line still open?