On 10/18/2012 2:45 PM, private sector's doing 'fine' wrote:
On 10/18/2012 3:34 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 10/18/2012 1:34 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...,6197167.story




Nice looking plane, even if it's a little chunky.

At the end of the story, the Times has:

At a time when federal spending is under a microscope, the F-35
program is the Pentagon's costliest program going. The Defense
Department has plans to buy 2,443 of the aircraft at a cost of
$382 billion, which is hundreds of billions of dollars over budget.


I bet a crisp Ben Franklin in my wallet that says not even a third of
those will be built and bought - far fewer than 800. Probably no more
than 400. 2.443 - what an absurd, extravagant number.

The F-35 has nowhere near the capabilities that the F-22 does. Yep, it's
a lot cheaper and has different mission roles BUT, a dozen F-22s are
better than five dozen F-35s. We (whoever) killed the F-22 because it
WAS superior and would remain so for 25 years. Can't intimidate our
enemies in the day of political correctness, can we. They might resent
our being superior.

Sound analysis.


They might also know that in ten years no one will be using planes with
pilots in them. They will all be remotely operated drones and we will
have once again spent billions on things that never will be used.


Hawke