The $243 Million Dollar Question: What Do We Need These Things For?

[unhappycamper]

unhappycamper note: Since the ‘Pentagon’ (Righthaven LLC? Gannett?) has ‘requested’ that I only post one paragraph from articles on Army Times, and Airforce Times, I’ve decided to give ya’ll an unhappycamper summary of the article and a link to the OP. To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.

To read the article in the military's own words, you will need to click the link.

Read all about Fair Use here. It sure is beginning to smell like fascism.

unhappycamper summary of this article: Yea, Lockheed has kept the cost down to almost a quarter of a billion dollars. One of these: will get you four of these:



Be sure to read the discussion at the end of the thread.






Our Stealth Jets Need to Have a Talk


Considering we’ve only got a limited number of F-22s and the fact that the F-35 will be our — and our allies’ — predominant stealth fighter for decades, this idea makes a lot of sense, especially if Lockheed can find a way to keep the cost down. (If you’ve tracked the F-35 program, you’ve got to be skeptical about its ability to do that. Though, it does appear the company is getting a handle on JSF costs.) The same idea also applies to linking the fighters to our B-2 bombers and whatever stealth UAVs are in development.

[msongs]

1. all cost overruns come out of the contractor's pockets, not the taxpayers nt

[bahrbearian]

2. If that were really true , Boeing and Lockheed would be out of busniess.

[blindpig]

3. How about if we don't build any more of that shit?

US armed fores got enough shit to last 20 years. If the US weren't the world hegemon it wouldn't need most of that stuff at all.

Reduce the Pentagon budget by 90%.