2.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years

[boyst]

That's the real key. JSF is a multi-national program, not just a US one. One big issue with the whole program has been the demands by foreign buyers for a piece of the development of the plane...and as the RAF and Fleet Air Arm are the biggest potential foreign buyers (something like a quarter of the program, I think), there is a HUGE incentive to give Rolls a piece of the engine development (in that, if the Brits don't get a Rolls engine, they don't buy, and the entire JSF program collapses as unaffordable as per-unit prices go through the roof). At THOSE stakes, $3B is cheap at the cost.

 

Really, the "engine boondoggle" has nothing to do with the engines themselves, and distracts from the real issue. That's just arguing about what color lipstick the pig should wear. The entire JSF program has been mired in unholy stupidity right from the first PowerPoint.

It's ok, we can keep using planes like the F15, B52, A10, and other equipment from Vietnam, Korea and WW2. I mean, after all, retrofitting all of our equipment year after year isn't a bad idea! Maybe we can break out the P47's!

 

If we do not invest now in to our future defense systems we will be in trouble. I just hope we do not have more of those 80's flops like the SR71 and other wastes.

[DC Tom]

It's ok, we can keep using planes like the F15, B52, A10, and other equipment from Vietnam, Korea and WW2. I mean, after all, retrofitting all of our equipment year after year isn't a bad idea! Maybe we can break out the P47's!

 

If we do not invest now in to our future defense systems we will be in trouble. I just hope we do not have more of those 80's flops like the SR71 and other wastes.

 

Saying "But the F-16 is old!" doesn't make the JSF program any less idiotic. No one disputes the aircraft inventory needs updating...but with a plane that comes in four distinctly different airframes and is intended to satisfy the completely different operational requirements of the Marines, USAF, Navy, RN, and RAF? Yeah, that's a good plan.

 

Morons SHOULD have kept the F-22 in production...after 15 years of R&D making that airframe multi-role, they finally get it working, then say "Oh, but its multi-role capability is way too expensive...let's ****-can it and develop this other multi-role fighter to replace every single aircraft in the inventory. That'll be cheaper!"

 

You want a real DoD acquisition boondoggle? Ten years after getting a reasonable deal on Boeing tankers and having it killed by Congress, the DoD has spent half the amount of the original lease on a friggin' competition that still hasn't produced a single goddamned plane.

[Nanker]

Is there any hope of resurrecting the

? Any?

Probably not.

 

More's the pity.

[DC Tom]

Is there any hope of resurrecting the

? Any?

Probably not.

 

More's the pity.

 

One of the great original engine designs of the WW2 era.

 

Of course, there were really only about six original engine designs of that era...and the Allison V was the worst of the lot...

[boyst]

...everything you said...

But isn't it too funny that people bawk about spending money to protect the troops they don't want over there in the first place? It isn't just about the JSF, it's the body armour, the guns, the tanks, etc; and people say it costs too much! Instead of cutting money to these vital departments why not reform the spending? Why doesn't anyone truly run on the platform that they are going to cut this pork? Wait, they do run on it and never do it!

 

The F22 not going in to production is beyond me! I mean, at a time of war we couldn't make this happen? What is wrong with that idea? Not saying I am pro or con there and just simply saying that I find it remarkable we could not build this thing with 2 wars going on and WW3 on the horizon.

[DC Tom]

But isn't it too funny that people bawk about spending money to protect the troops they don't want over there in the first place? It isn't just about the JSF, it's the body armour, the guns, the tanks, etc; and people say it costs too much! Instead of cutting money to these vital departments why not reform the spending? Why doesn't anyone truly run on the platform that they are going to cut this pork? Wait, they do run on it and never do it!

 

Actually, the body armor, guns, tanks, etc., are pretty well funded. Where the DoD hurts for cash is operational budgets - it's not unheard of for the Navy to have ships in port towards the end of the fiscal year simply because there's no money to fuel them, and as I've mentioned here before, Congress has forced the Navy to purchase ships it not only didn't want but couldn't use because the operational manpower and budget simply wasn't there.

 

Anyone who ever bitches about individual programs at DoD is missing the point: DoD's problems aren't project-based. They're far more fundamental.

 

The F22 not going in to production is beyond me! I mean, at a time of war we couldn't make this happen? What is wrong with that idea? Not saying I am pro or con there and just simply saying that I find it remarkable we could not build this thing with 2 wars going on and WW3 on the horizon.

 

Simple, really...after the Cold War ended, someone decided that a pure air superiority fighter wasn't needed, and decided to pour a decade more of R&D into it to make it "multi-role". When the plane finally reaches production (about eight years "late"), all that extra R&D is amortized into the per-unit cost, the price of a single F-22 roughly doubles, and now the program is both "late" and "over budget". At that point, someone says "Well, gee whillikers, we've got the JSF in the pipeline, it's got the same multi-role capability, is more suited for the current war, and is cheaper!!!" At which point, the F-22 program gets killed.

 

Which demonstrates how truly stupidly procurement is run at the DoD. Delay operational deployment of a system to perform additional R&D on new system requirements, then cancel it because it's "too expensive" based on a cost that includes the amortization of R&D money already spent???? That's a completely !@#$ing insane engineering process. Had they deployed the F-22 as an air superiority fighter when it was ready, they'd have had a proven operational airframe on which to develop additional capabilities (much like they did with the F-18), and actually got more capability for less money.

 

In software development we have processes that are specifically intended to avoid just that happening...and it still happens about half the time: project gets developed, requirements change before depolyment, gets redeveloped, which adds costs, which causes cancellation because "the project is a failure because it's over-budget" (and that's called "having good management controls" ). The truly insane thing is that those processes are often derived from DoD processes that DoD apparently doesn't even follow themselves.

 

Note that this also goes a long way towards explaining why I don't want the federal government anywhere NEAR health care.

[/dev/null]

Note that this also goes a long way towards explaining why I don't want the federal government anywhere NEAR health care.

But the Federal Government can protect me against Nazis Communists, Middle East Dictators Terrorists Corporations the Boogeyman

[DC Tom]

But the Federal Government can protect me against Nazis Communists, Middle East Dictators Terrorists Corporations the Boogeyman

 

The federal government can't even protect itself from itself.

[Peace]

Actually, the body armor, guns, tanks, etc., are pretty well funded. Where the DoD hurts for cash is operational budgets - it's not unheard of for the Navy to have ships in port towards the end of the fiscal year simply because there's no money to fuel them, and as I've mentioned here before, Congress has forced the Navy to purchase ships it not only didn't want but couldn't use because the operational manpower and budget simply wasn't there.

 

Anyone who ever bitches about individual programs at DoD is missing the point: DoD's problems aren't project-based. They're far more fundamental.

 

 

 

Simple, really...after the Cold War ended, someone decided that a pure air superiority fighter wasn't needed, and decided to pour a decade more of R&D into it to make it "multi-role". When the plane finally reaches production (about eight years "late"), all that extra R&D is amortized into the per-unit cost, the price of a single F-22 roughly doubles, and now the program is both "late" and "over budget". At that point, someone says "Well, gee whillikers, we've got the JSF in the pipeline, it's got the same multi-role capability, is more suited for the current war, and is cheaper!!!" At which point, the F-22 program gets killed.

 

Which demonstrates how truly stupidly procurement is run at the DoD. Delay operational deployment of a system to perform additional R&D on new system requirements, then cancel it because it's "too expensive" based on a cost that includes the amortization of R&D money already spent???? That's a completely !@#$ing insane engineering process. Had they deployed the F-22 as an air superiority fighter when it was ready, they'd have had a proven operational airframe on which to develop additional capabilities (much like they did with the F-18), and actually got more capability for less money.

 

In software development we have processes that are specifically intended to avoid just that happening...and it still happens about half the time: project gets developed, requirements change before depolyment, gets redeveloped, which adds costs, which causes cancellation because "the project is a failure because it's over-budget" (and that's called "having good management controls" ). The truly insane thing is that those processes are often derived from DoD processes that DoD apparently doesn't even follow themselves.

 

Note that this also goes a long way towards explaining why I don't want the federal government anywhere NEAR health care.

 

Worth repeating this story. I used to work for a company that did billions in DoD contract work. When we went overbudget we got paid 100%. When we saved money (sometimes in huge chunks), the DoD rep in charge of our contract would freak out and meet with us to come up with a plant to spend all the money they had set aside. Basically, we'd make up work to do. Why? Because if they come in UNDERbudget, that arm of the DoD (in this case, LANTDIV) would get less money the next year.

 

To summarize, if we went overbudget, DoD covered all of our fees. If we cam in underbudget, DoD came up with any project it could to spend the money we went overbudget.

 

The DoD has loads of waste.

[RkFast]

It's ok, we can keep using planes like the F15, B52, A10, and other equipment from Vietnam, Korea and WW2. I mean, after all, retrofitting all of our equipment year after year isn't a bad idea! Maybe we can break out the P47's!

 

If we do not invest now in to our future defense systems we will be in trouble. I just hope we do not have more of those 80's flops like the SR71 and other wastes.

 

For the most part, you dont retire military weapons systems just becuase they get old. You reitre them becuase their mission goes away.

 

The B52 and A10 are REALLY bad examples of aircraft that should be retired "just becuase they are old." They both continue to serve their mission VERY well.

 

And the SR71 was....um....retired in the 80s, developed in the 50s and was HARDLY a "waste."

 

Worth repeating this story. I used to work for a company that did billions in DoD contract work. When we went overbudget we got paid 100%. When we saved money (sometimes in huge chunks), the DoD rep in charge of our contract would freak out and meet with us to come up with a plant to spend all the money they had set aside. Basically, we'd make up work to do. Why? Because if they come in UNDERbudget, that arm of the DoD (in this case, LANTDIV) would get less money the next year.

 

To summarize, if we went overbudget, DoD covered all of our fees. If we cam in underbudget, DoD came up with any project it could to spend the money we went overbudget.

 

The DoD has loads of waste.

 

Thats not just the goverment, thats plenty of businesses in the private sector, too. I have plenty of clients who ask me to "come up with something to finish off the extra money laying around that was set aside for the other project, but not used."

Edited January 23, 2011 by RkFast

[NoSaint]

For the most part, you dont retire military weapons systems just becuase they get old. You reitre them becuase their mission goes away.

 

The B52 and A10 are REALLY bad examples of aircraft that should be retired "just becuase they are old." They both continue to serve their mission VERY well.

 

And the SR71 was....um....retired in the 80s, developed in the 50s and was HARDLY a "waste."

 

 

 

Thats not just the goverment, thats plenty of businesses in the private sector, too. I have plenty of clients who ask me to "come up with something to finish off the extra money laying around that was set aside for the other project, but not used."

 

It's true - even on a very micro level how often do you rush something into a month just so you can eat up budget. Even an office admin that is under will orde stuff to ensure the money keeps coming.

[Peace]

Thats not just the goverment, thats plenty of businesses in the private sector, too. I have plenty of clients who ask me to "come up with something to finish off the extra money laying around that was set aside for the other project, but not used."

 

And that's nice but I don't care about what happens in some dumb business. I do care about what happens in the government because it's my GD money. Instead of saving it, they just want more.

[DC Tom]

The B52 and A10 are REALLY bad examples of aircraft that should be retired "just becuase they are old." They both continue to serve their mission VERY well.

 

And I don't care what people say...to my eyes the A-10 is one of the most beautiful planes ever made (just watching one now on TV).

 

But then, I appreciate the beauty inherent in a simple, specific, utilitarian design intended to do one thing and do it extremely well.

 

In other words...I think the JSF is sinfully ugly. Absolutely !@#$ing atrocious. It's the Roseanne Barr of aircraft.

[boyst]

And I don't care what people say...to my eyes the A-10 is one of the most beautiful planes ever made (just watching one now on TV).

The A-10 is probably the smartest designed aircraft of all time. For it's role, close combat support, it is perfect. It can fly with one engine blown up, half of a wing, the wheels still being up, and on its manual controls. When I think of the A-10 I think of that Cowboys player who flew them during Desert Storm.

 

The cannon, the tub the pilot sits in, that thing is a beast. My other favorite is the gunship they use, I think the AC-130, that thing is ridiculous, too.

[manateefan]

What a bunch of f__king p--ies. No defense cuts. No Social Security cuts. Can we just try...for once...to put the country's welfare ahead of party BS?

 

I like that list a LOT. But let's gore the right's sacred cows too.

 

BTW, one these, AMTRAK, will affect me a lot. But oh well.

 

There are many ready to collect Social Security. Are you going to tell them that they can't after paying for over 40 years or better? Then there are people on it that have not even had a cost of living in 2 years.

 

I have a minimum of 8 years before I can get even get early benefits and have worked 37 years already and paid into the social security system and you totally want to get rid of it? My husband is older than me and wants to retire this year. He is older than I am. Should he be denied benefits he has paid into since he was 12 when he became a paperboy? If so I want all the money I put into it (not by choice) back. If you change the Social Security system you have to have a time frame. Anybody born after a certain date. Don't penalize those of us who have paid into the system for most of our lives.

[manateefan]

I forgot to add my biggest pet peeve: the Congress and the Senate vote on their own pay raises. And they do it every year. Shouldn't "we the people" have a say? Even in local government county commissioners keep getting raises while saying they have to save money by cutting services. AS I was growing up I only knew one county commissioner (in Buffalo, NY they called them county legislators) who voted against the raise. He lost so he donated the money to charity. They are part time job for local communities and he felt it wrong at that time for them to get a raise when business was down (and he was a business owner besides). My thing is if your constituents are being hurt or desicimated by current regulations or job loss why should you get a raise just because you are in congress or the senate?

 

And they shouldn't be under the Social Security same as us. Not under as totally separate plan for retirement. I had an uncle who work for IRS in the 60's (as a Fed their retirement system was different and better). He retired making more than many of us make working now. Supposedly those working for IRS after a certain date are not in that plan and are part of the social security system.

Edited January 27, 2011 by manateefan

[Peace]

There are many ready to collect Social Security. Are you going to tell them that they can't after paying for over 40 years or better? Then there are people on it that have not even had a cost of living in 2 years.

 

I have a minimum of 8 years before I can get even get early benefits and have worked 37 years already and paid into the social security system and you totally want to get rid of it? My husband is older than me and wants to retire this year. He is older than I am. Should he be denied benefits he has paid into since he was 12 when he became a paperboy? If so I want all the money I put into it (not by choice) back. If you change the Social Security system you have to have a time frame. Anybody born after a certain date. Don't penalize those of us who have paid into the system for most of our lives.

 

You put a lot of words in my mouth. Cuts doesn't mean elimination. Yet. You should get less. We can't afford it. Whose fault is it that social security didn't get fixed in the last 40 years when it's been broken? Ours dear voter. Yours and mine. The time to fix it is now. Turn the faucet down as it eventually reaches off. It's the entitled baby boomers who want it all. Their selfish butts probably will once again prevent fixing it, leaving the uber social security disaster for their grandkids along with the debt disaster also ignored in their hands, but who cares right? As long as you get yours.

 

Why couldn't Woodstock have been like a giant roach motel. But with great bands. "Boomers check in but they don't check out. "

 

I forgot to add my biggest pet peeve: the Congress and the Senate vote on their own pay raises. And they do it every year. Shouldn't "we the people" have a say?

 

You do. 95% incumbent reelection rates are the lion share of that problem. Stop voting the same people in and they will stop stroking themselves on your dime.

[....lybob]

You put a lot of words in my mouth. Cuts doesn't mean elimination. Yet. You should get less. We can't afford it. Whose fault is it that social security didn't get fixed in the last 40 years when it's been broken? Ours dear voter. Yours and mine. The time to fix it is now. Turn the faucet down as it eventually reaches off. It's the entitled baby boomers who want it all. Their selfish butts probably will once again prevent fixing it, leaving the uber social security disaster for their grandkids along with the debt disaster also ignored in their hands, but who cares right? As long as you get yours.

 

Why couldn't Woodstock have been like a giant roach motel. But with great bands. "Boomers check in but they don't check out. "

 

 

 

You do. 95% incumbent reelection rates are the lion share of that problem. Stop voting the same people in and they will stop stroking themselves on your dime.

Social Security was never broken it has a 2.5 trillion surplus - what has been broken for a long time is the general fund which has used the social security fund surplus to hide the level of the deficit for decades, now maybe we are so broke that we want to renege on our debt obligations but it's due to a government that wants to have both high levels of spending and low tax levels not in some type of crazy excess in the social security program.