The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere • Hacker News Board

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#71

Post by JPKab » Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 6:25 PM UTC

commandar wrote: post #69

JPKab wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is by design. Lockheed first learned how to game congress with the B1B (another useless plane). Here's the recipe: Talk to the military, see what's giving them a hard-on these days. Get them to start coming up with a project to put on contract. Military issues Request for Information/Request for Proposal based on requirements you told them to use Contact any and all congressman. Let them know that you intend to…

>Lockheed first learned how to game congress with the B1B (another useless plane). Well, except that the B1B was manufactured by Rockwell who have since been absorbed by Boeing.

ah, I stand corrected. What I should've said was the defense contracting industry learned how to game congress.

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#72

Post by drzaiusapelord » Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 7:28 PM UTC

01Michael10 wrote: post #70

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food stamps =! social security. Also SS isn't an entitlement, I fucking paid into it, i should get something back.

No one said food stamps = social security but they both are social programs that benefit people. Social Security is in fact an entitlement as in workers are "entitled" to their benefits by paying into the system. Republicans later smeared the word entitlement because it now also refers to welfare programs (entitled by law) so people get confused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement

Yes but comparing to the military is unfair. These are two very different types of programs. Of course SS costs more, we're all paying massive amounts into it for our retirement.

Military on the other hand is spending congress controls and whether its 1 dollar or 1 trillion is by their whim. No one is explicitly paying into it. In these kinds of military vs "welfare" spending, removing SS from it makes perfect sense. It pays for itself, and then some (when congress isnt stealing from it). Military is all debts and spent money. Its doesn't pay for itself. It buys 1 trillion dollar jet programs that are the laughingstock of the world as our corruption and incompetence are clear to see.

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#73

Post by 01Michael10 » Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 8:21 PM UTC

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #72

01Michael10 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one said food stamps = social security but they both are social programs that benefit people. Social Security is in fact an entitlement as in workers are "entitled" to their benefits by paying into the system. Republicans later smeared the word entitlement because it now also refers to welfare programs (entitled by law) so people get confused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement

Yes but comparing to the military is unfair. These are two very different types of programs. Of course SS costs more, we're all paying massive amounts into it for our retirement. Military on the other hand is spending congress controls and whether its 1 dollar or 1 trillion is by their whim. No one is explicitly paying into it. In these kinds of military vs "welfare" spending, removing SS from it makes perfect sense.…

I think you are confusing me with wuliwong...

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#74

Post by Gravityloss » Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 12:47 PM UTC

commandar wrote: post #68

Gravityloss wrote: post #61

It seems to be expensive, but what would have been the alternative to JSF or to the F-35? The trillion dollar budget was postulated by some already long beforehand. Bill Sweetman wrote that into his book ten years ago already: http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Fighter-Lockheed-Martin-Strik... Unfortunately, with this being what it is, nobody believes the companies' presented combat aircraft prices. Just a while ago, the…

The problem isn't just that the F-35 is multirole but is trying to cater to the various quirks of multiple services. I mentioned it upthread, but an example of this is the very shape of the aircraft was determined in large part due to the Marines' vertical take off requirement. This necessitated a huge lifting fan in the fuselage, which had major ramifications on the maneuverability of the aircraft and the pilot's vi…

I don't dispute your points: it is very expensive and there are problems.

So, at the risk of oversimplifying, your preferred approach would be to stop the F-35 program (or programs) and start a few new different aircraft programs, and trying to depend on existing or mild developments as well?

It would not be cheap either, and it would take time.