1 posted on
03/12/2008 9:51:33 AM PDT by
BGHater
To: BGHater
Nice idea, we cannot afford it.
Kill it.
2 posted on
03/12/2008 9:57:45 AM PDT by
fatez
("If you're going through Hell, keep going." Winston Churchill)
To: BGHater
crAP opposes it ... it must be good.
4 posted on
03/12/2008 9:59:06 AM PDT by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: BGHater
Auditors criticized both the military and the contractor for pressing into the jet's development's phase before key technologies were mature, started manufacturing test aircraft before designs were stable, and moved to production before flight tests showed the aircraft was ready. Kelly Johnson is spinning in his grave.
To: BGHater
One Trillion for a fighter?
Inflation.
One politician just paid over $4,000 for one screw.
7 posted on
03/12/2008 10:03:07 AM PDT by
N. Theknow
(Kennedys: Can't drive, can't fly, can't ski, can't skipper a boat; but they know what's best for us)
To: BGHater
8 posted on
03/12/2008 10:03:21 AM PDT by
jazusamo
(DefendOurMarines.org | DefendOurTroops.org)
To: BGHater
What is that, about 10 euros?
Maybe we should borrow it from China. Maybe even let them build the planes for us.
9 posted on
03/12/2008 10:04:32 AM PDT by
mysterio
To: BGHater
Well, Social Security will cost $20T over the same period of time. Guess we’d better start taking an axe to SS since it’s so bloated.
To: BGHater
First, this aircraft is going to cost as much as the F-22 by the time it’s ready to go. Second, any aircraft that is claimed to replace the A-10 is a fraud.
11 posted on
03/12/2008 10:10:50 AM PDT by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: BGHater
It’s rather deceptive to include FUEL COSTS in your estimate for the total costs of a plane.
It’s actually rather deceptive to simply report MAINTENANCE costs as well.
After all, these planes are replacing other planes, and those planes WON’T be maintained, or using fuel. And no matter what plane you fly, fuel costs are going up.
To: BGHater
Auditors criticized both the military and the contractor for pressing into the jet's development's phase before key technologies were mature, started manufacturing test aircraft before designs were stable, and moved to production before flight tests showed the aircraft was ready. I'm sure the auditors thoroughly investigated the effects of congressional meddling on the program as well. NOT!
To: BGHater
Money well spent IMO.
This plane is amazing.
16 posted on
03/12/2008 10:53:36 AM PDT by
Bobalu
(I guess I see'd that varmint for the last time....)
To: BGHater
The Navy should drop out of this program. Other than the stealth, there is no single area of performance where the Super Hornet isn’t the better plane, especially in regards to the radar. The Super Bug has a longer range, higher top speed, bigger payload, and the safety of two engines. And its a hell of a lot cheaper. Let USAF destroy their own damn budget with this thing.
17 posted on
03/12/2008 10:53:48 AM PDT by
DesScorp
To: BGHater
The new jet will replace the Air Forces F-16 Falcon and the A-10 Warthog aircraft. A short takeoff and vertical landing version will replace the Marine Corps F/A-18C/D and AV-8B Harrier aircraft. And the Navy is buying a model designed for taking off and landing on aircraft carriers.This would seem to be a bad thing. When the military has an aircraft crash, what action do they take? Ground all aircraft of that model until the cause of the crash is determined.
So if the Navy version of the F-35 crashes, do all other versions of the F-35 get grounded as well? And wouldn't it be bad to have so much of our air power grounded simultaneously?
19 posted on
03/12/2008 10:58:31 AM PDT by
whd23
To: BGHater
30 posted on
03/12/2008 6:10:28 PM PDT by
Liberty Valance
(Keep a simple manner for a happy life)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson