What do we get for $90 million EACH? The F-35. Step into the cockpit:

[trof]

And step into insanity.



"Each plane clocks in at around $90 million.
So, how many F-35s do we need?
100?
500?
Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion.

Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion."
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/

BUT, we get "AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS) for the F-35"

A WHAAA...?
Take a look:
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/assets/eodasvideo.html

My advice: BUY Lockheed stock.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. You have to admit, trof, that's a helluva aiplane...

Of course, it begs the question; I thought we were moving towards more drones?

[TheWraith]

5. We are, which is why the F-35 is likely to be axed before it sees mass production.

Although frankly it was silly trying to build a "half stealth" airplane in the first place: technology far enough back from the cutting edge to sell to other countries, but also far enough back to not be truly effective in providing a zero-presence profile. Investing in a few more F-22s and a refurbished design of the F/A-18 would have made more sense to begin with.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. One trillion dollars.

Way, WAY too much.

I like your idea much better, my dear trof. BUY Lockheed stock.

[gratuitous]

3. Bet death to win, place and show!

Are the stock dividends paid in cash or in the actual blood and bones of the victims of these fancy flying machines?

[cbayer]

4. I just watched a fascinating NOVA program on this last night.

It's streaming on Netflix. The price tag is actually apparently much lower than it was prior to the competition to build there. Definitely worth a watch.



Battle of the X-Planes: Nova
2002NR115 minutes
NOVA follows the battles and backroom deal-making between Lockheed and Boeing in their race to win the largest defense contract ever, worth $1 trillion. Follow four years of decision-making regarding test flights, aviation engineering and contract negotiations that resulted in the Joint Strike Fighter -- a plane made to be adaptable, affordable and stealthy.

Genres ocumentaries, Military Documentaries This movie is:CerebralAvailability:Streaming

[RC]

6. When you are targeting "Terrorists" with their families in their homes,

When the countries they live in and we like to attack do not even have an air force to speak of, Why do we need this?

Let's save that money and apply it instead to honest elections, War Crime Trials and Single payer.

[Swede Atlanta]

7. We do not need ANY new weapons systems........

Our current military technology is sufficient to protect us for at least the next 10-15 years. Yes countries like China are investing in their military but I suggest we are probably still fine for quite a ways into the future.

The risk is, of course, that if we don't invest in new technologies we will fall behind. So I'm not opposed to continued investment in R&D to keep our edge but each new weapons system needs to be evaluated on an absolute "need to have" basis.

[provis99]

8. this plane is worse than the F-18 it's replacing.

another defense white elephant brought to you, the taxpayer.

[msongs]

9. real target = US treasury to fatten MIC corporate profits nt