$1 trillion budget f-35 wasteful spending?

@Jacruz25 (1124)
Philippines
September 7, 2011 10:36pm CST
Now that US is in a major debt crisis the government still spends trillions of dollars for 2,200+ next generation jets. Do you think it's worth it? F-22's are superior than F-35 but only 187 F-22's will be built(currently 168 active). Why not use that money to pay for their debt? Better yet use it wisely like in education and health. The cold war is over but US is still building war machines like crazy. Here's the link for the failed F-22 and F-35: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQmsLK2hMz8
7 responses
@telmesh (1793)
8 Sep 11
Hi just watched the youtube link as being a brit it's a program we don't see. Having worked in the defence aircraft industry in the UK and been involved in the F-35 development (JSF) I've always been sceptical of this aircraft series. Really not impressed.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
8 Sep 11
Right now our military is performing better than our schools. The military has kept us safe for years while in education our test scores are dropping, the dropout rate is going up and our schools are falling apart but the schools have the latest computers with flat screen monitors that sit idle most of the time because the teachers don't know how to use them. The trillions spent on the war on poverty and we have more people living in poverty now than when the government started the war on poverty back in the 1960's. In both examples the government has not solved the problem. This same argument has been made every time the military gets a new weapon. I am sure that the technical problems can be worked out.
1 person likes this
@lampar (7597)
• United States
8 Sep 11
Without all these trillion dollar spending on unnecessary fighter jets again, how in the world can Lockheed Martin, General Dynamic; Boeing or EDS going to make another trillion in annual profit at our expense, then can go ahead to contribute million to the politician and political party's election campaign fund. Just do the math, the reason is quite obvious, spending trillion in education and health care will not guarantee the defense contractors big annual profit again as promised by politician.
1 person likes this
@andy77e (5170)
• United States
8 Sep 11
My issue here is that we're wasting our time talking about a jet, instead of dealing with the real issues facing our budget. Let's go into fantasy land. Let's pretend a moment. If you eliminated the entire US military, eliminate all funding for research and design, if eliminate the entire US budget, and left only Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid... We'd still be broke. The amount of money we are investing into "health" and social security is in the red. It costs too much. But instead of dealing with these huge issues, we're talking about the $1 Trillion dollar F35. But oh a trillion is a lot... right? Yeah, until you realize that's been the cost spread over the last 14 years. That $1 Trillion figure includes all the R&D from the start of the program back in 1997. That's $71 Billion dollars a year. Comparatively, the department of health and human services is spending $81 Billion dollars this year alone. But again, the point is if we had no military whatsoever, we'd still be broke. The cost of these social programs is killing us. And worse, haven't we seen where socialism (government taking money from the people to give to the people) does not work? Venezuela? Cuba? Russia? China? Socialism destroyed those countries. Why are we trying it here? And throwing money at education also doesn't work. The US spends more per student than any other country. Yet other countries routinely makes us look stupid when our students compete against their students in literature, science, math, and Geography. Hello?!?! We need to spend less money on education, and make people more responsible for their own learning. The socialist way hasn't worked. And as a last point... the main, number one purpose of the federal government, is to provide for defense. That is its singular most important duty. Yet here we are complaining about defense, and asking to spend more on programs that the government shouldn't be doing anyway, and at the same time are the cause of our problems. No, we need to cut spending on education and health, and keep the advanced fighter jets. We have done it your way for the last 40 years, and that why we're in this mess.
@Jacruz25 (1124)
• Philippines
8 Sep 11
I understand your point. So why don't your government deal with your international debt first? Try cutting off the annual budget in all sectors and save money to pay your debts. It may not be a waste if you build 2000+ f-35 but the point here is the cold war is over so why build war machines if your economy is shrinking?
@Jacruz25 (1124)
• Philippines
10 Sep 11
Yup I got your point there. A little fact most tanks cost between $8M-$1M. No tank costs $50M. reviewing your math ($50M per tank for 100 tanks = $2.5B not $1B). over all you have a point there but I still consider it too much spending. You see the US is spending $600B annually for defense more than the combined spending of china, russia, japan, UK, germany, france and india.. According to other sources the US is actually $1Trillion annually for defense. What ever happens in the future I hope those F-22,F-35, M1 abrams, Apache, aircraft carriers, ect will be useful and represent as a weapon of peace not a weapon to kill civilians.
@Jacruz25 (1124)
• Philippines
10 Sep 11
I was a little preoccupied when doing the math..lol.. well You seemed to be right. Yup countries like china and russia can produce tanks more cheaper than US or European country does. But it was proven in gulf wars that latest russian tanks are completely outgunned by their western counterpart it simply means western tanks are more sophisticated. How much more can a chinese made tank vs western tanks? Superior machines costs higher. even in aircraft migs are completely no match even for an F-15. You made a good explanation about your opinion and I think you have a point there.
@dark_joev (3043)
• United States
8 Sep 11
If we cancel the order of the 187 F-22 then it will cost more per unit where the 187 will make it far easier to fix. Where the B-2 is a 2.2 Billion dollar each plane because the total cost was so huge. I mean it is far more cost effective to build all of them for the future.
@Jacruz25 (1124)
• Philippines
8 Sep 11
I think even 100 F-22s is already enough. Like what the US airforce claims 1 raptor vs 5 jets (what ever it is) is not even a competition. Current price of a B-2 now is $1B. B-2's will retire soon anyway.
@dark_joev (3043)
• United States
9 Sep 11
Yeah well lets see here 100 F-22s would cost more per unit than the original order of 187 so if you want to pay more per unit then your idea is smart if you want to pay less per unit then 187 is the better route because either way the government is paying for the full order of planes which the B-2 costing 1 Billion is still more than the original cost would be per unit. It would of been lower if we kept the full order. Also the F-22 was combat tested against 15 F-15s which is pretty much the closest we have to what other nations have to go against us.
@Jacruz25 (1124)
• Philippines
9 Sep 11
It's still ok about that 187 F-22 and after that lockheed martin should completely end the F-22 building so that no other country(even US allies) can acquire F-22's unmatched technology. I heard a news a couple of years ago that Japan wants 100 F-22.
@ebuscat (5949)
• Philippines
8 Sep 11
For me yes because when the Armageddon hit in our world no money would be in our life to be gain because it's Jehovah Gods government will rule
@voracious (624)
• Philippines
8 Sep 11
I think investing more on their military facilities are too much exaggerated since they have almost everything on military and it's not necessary to invest more. 1 trillion dollars is not a joke, in fact if they will invest it in other things like health, commerce, tourism will give them a good results.